Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

Ram, you have by and large described functions of conscience. That does not answer to the legitimate authority of its rulings. That points to the is-ought gap and the only place it can be bridged post Hume's Guillotine, roots of reality. A brief note. KF PS: Sociopathy is probably better seen as benumbed or damaged conscience. The idea of being born without conscience, psychopathy, is much more controversial. Web MD: https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference >>A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath [--> older psychological terminology] is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center. A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says. A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. They may know that taking your money is wrong, and they might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop their behavior. Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.>> kairosfocus

KF: Origenes [pardon], the focus of this thread is in the title, is there such a thing as morality or ethics. I will most humbly boil it down for you. There is human nature. Most humans have some notion of what is generally classified as "morality." (A small subset, the sociopaths, which comprise approximately 4% of the population, seem to lack this notion.) "Morality" is grounded in a couple of programmed impulses: "empathy" and "fairness." The precise manifestation of these programmed principles of human nature vary from person to person, due to congenital variables and cultural variables. So then, the answer appears to be, "yes." (How human nature became so programmed is a matter of debate. Some people think blind natural forces are responsible. Some believe an intelligent creator is responsible. The source is irrelevent for the purposes of the OP title question. ) Hope that helps. --Ram ram

Origenes [pardon], the focus of this thread is in the title, is there such a thing as morality or ethics. I intervened as it was important to highlight the import of Ciceronian first duties and natural law; the marginalisation of which in academic and practical jurisprudence is a material factor in our civilisation's troubles. I have noted, that even objectors, to gain persuasive rhetorical traction cannot but appeal to same, making them inescapable, so inescapably true and so too self evident first principles. That is blatantly unpalatable to many so all sorts of objections have been manufactured, all of which implicitly appeal to said first duties of responsible reason. The key case is made, despite many denials and the like. As for your ever more tangential campaign against objectivity, I simply note that it has been abundantly shown, with mathematical entities tracing to { } --> 0 as key case, that objectivity, even on entities and states of affairs contemplated by minds, is conferred by successful warrant; which, is communicable and so in principle public. Such obviously extends to doubting one's self aware existence then recognising that it is the self-aware who doubt . . . which elicits the same recognition in the audience. That is enough, though I doubt it will currently be acceptable to you. I am content that the case has been adequately made and stands as record. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus

At this point, it is fairly clear that you are putting up rhetorical shields one after another to protect something core but vulnerable.

The point I make—only the subject himself has access to his own conscious self-awareness—is very well-known, widely understood and accepted. The fact that we do not have access to the consciousness of others, even has a name: the Solipsism Problem (aka the Problem of Other Minds). p.s. I am not arguining in favor of solipsism. Please don't start arguing against solipsism, as if that is my position. I am not a solipsist at all. Origenes

KF

... it is not the statement but the warrant that is relevant. As the human race is unified, the same warrant as described obtains.

Clarify please. What do you mean by "relevant"? And which "warrant as described" obtains? Origenes

Origines, it is not the statement but the warrant that is relevant. As the human race is unified, the same warrant as described obtains. At this point, it is fairly clear that you are putting up rhetorical shields one after another to protect something core but vulnerable. Likely tied to subjectivism and/or relativism. Those already fall of their own weight. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: For clarity, let's suppose you meet an unknown adult person, let's call him John. John tells you: "I exist, I have conscious self-awareness." Suppose further that John adds: "I tried to doubt my existence, but then I realized that I had to exist in order to do that. So, then I was certain of my existence." Explain how you can conclude that John's statement is 'objective', that is, name the warrant you have of John having conscious self-awareness, besides John's testimony. Origenes

Origines, actually -- and much as LCD just pointed out -- no. There are at least two self-aware, self-moved agents present. First, the one who expresses doubt and recognition and the one hearing and seeing, who is also conscious of her or his own self-awareness and its import in light of the argument. Both mutually recognise and if say we have husband and wife with children, they have reason to know directly that they are of the same order of creature, and their children are an onward audience with the same report; there is utterly no good reason to entertain frivolous or desperate absurdities of zombie arguments. There is deep and far reaching, communicable warrant here. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus LCD, that the local zone of the earth is apparently flat is objectively true

Discussion was about the Earth's shape not about a "local zone" on the Earth.

Origenes Subject X tells us that he has conscious self-awareness. It is not possible for us, to test/verify his claim. His word, his claim, is all we have—nothing else.

Nothing else? His word,his claim of subject x are decoded in your conscious self-awareness(subject y). Lieutenant Commander Data

Kairosfocus,

again, the issue is warrant, which can attach to (…) self-aware experiences, intentionality, qualia etc. KF

So, conscious self-awareness, experienced & warranted only by subject X itself is ‘objective’— because warrant ... Note that all we have is subject X testimony. Subject X tells us that he has conscious self-awareness. It is not possible for us, to test/verify his claim. His word, his claim, is all we have—nothing else. Yet, according to Kairosfocus, who otherwise has a cynical approach towards claims by error-prone sinning subjects, this time the claim by subject X constitutes an “objective” truth. One cannot help but wondering when a subject is not considered to produce ‘objective truths’, and why. Origenes

LCD, that the local zone of the earth is apparently flat is objectively true; that the earth as a whole is flat is objectively false, i.e. the objective truth is earth is non-flat. Such was known by about 300 BC. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @579+, As you've noticed from the disingenuous, evasive, and derogatory replies, some of participants simply want to waste our time. At your (repeated) warnings, I'm terminating my discussion on the subject. I've made the foundation for my morality and ethics abundantly clear--what's been revealed to people who trust in the inspired Word of God. On the topic of the OP, identifying the source of one's morality and ethics is fundamental. Basing one's morality and ethics on personal preference is equivalent to having none. Thank you for your patience and tolerance despite all the abuse and accusations heaped on you. God bless you. -Q Querius

Origenes, again, the issue is warrant, which can attach to tangibles and intangibles, rocks, null sets, relationships, quantum phenomena, historical reports, testimony, sums with ticks and x's in elementary school, self-aware experiences, intentionality, qualia etc. KF kairosfocus

WJM, your root issue is back in 378 as I picked up in 392 and on. As for what you presented in your OP, that is what I responded to clip by clip. Further to this, I have found that you run afoul of a well known issue with monisms, which becomes self-referential and self-undermining. As for who said what, Bradley summarised the Kant-influenced, an issue that is still relevant today and applies by extension to views that end up implying that the in common physical world is in the end a delusion. KF kairosfocus

KF @584, If you're reading what I write, you're certainly not comprehending it.

To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality...

Who said reality is something we cannot reach? Not me. You're the one that has placed "reality" in an unreachable position, not me. IOW, KF, the only way any of us can gain knowledge of reality, is if MRT/IRT is true. If knowledge of reality depends on accessing something external of mind and conscious experience - like some independent, external world - we're just out of luck, because there's literally no way to validate it, check it or even look at it. William J Murray

Origenes “I exist therefore you exist”, does not make any sense.

Well if doesn't make any sense what do you think you do when you send messages? To whom do you send messages, to yourself maybe ,because after your logic nobody else exist . :)

An example of two objective statements, which cannot both be true: 1. The earth shape is flat. 2. The earth shape is ellipsoid. For both statements there is warrant in the ‘real’ world, thus both are ‘objective.’ Arguably the second statement has better / more extensive warrant.

:) Wow, those statements can't be both true therefore can't be both objective .Can be both false /incomplete/biased therefore subjective but never can be both objective. Lieutenant Commander Data

Kairosfocus:

warrant is intelligible and expressible in language, symbols, drawings etc, so it can be and is communicated, making it external to the original party providing the warrant and open to evaluation by others.

Sure.

Just so, I can write down how I doubt my self-aware existence but to do so rests on said self-awareness so once one is self aware that is undeniably and self-evidently real.

Indeed. We can both follow the same Descartian line of reasoning and both conclude “I exist”, however your conclusion “I exist” refers to your existence, and my “I exist” refers to my existence. Your existence obviously constitutes no warrant for my existence and vice versa. "I exist therefore you exist", does not make any sense. Why is it that I have to point out the obvious? Origenes

Jerry Here I offer simple definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ that IMHO make sense: The problem is they make sense.

Another one who have no clue . Lieutenant Commander Data

Jerry, there is that new thread on breakdown of a generation. KF kairosfocus

WJM, again, F H Bradley on Kant-related schemes that try to lock off knowledge of an external world:

We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]

This has of course been pointed out many times over the years including above. KF kairosfocus

Here I offer simple definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ that IMHO make sense:

The problem is they make sense. Most people here don’t care about truth snd sense. By the way this was done previously above and on many other threads. See 277-284 above. jerry

KF @579 apparently doesn't understand what I said @574, because he is entirely within his mental experience, with no access to anything beyond that even in principle, utilizing his mental tools and mental experiences to try and make the case that mind is flawed and cannot be relied on unless we have reference to something that hypothetically exists external of mind. KF is fond of saying that the very way I argue indicates that I am appealing to some "duty" to truth; I showed how that cannot be the case. The irony here is, ever bit of KF's argument requires that he trust the very thing he claims cannot be trusted and leads to self-referential delusion: use something in mind to measure, validate and correct something in mind. There is no escaping it, so there we had better have access to our plumb-line and ruler tool kit in mind or else we're out of luck. To make his argument not self-defeating, KF would have to point to something outside of his mental/conscious experience. Good luck with that. William J Murray

WJM @574 Your post makes a very important point and I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety. It seems to me that Kairosfocus attempts to have an epistemology with a "objective" control-center situated outside his "error-prone" mind.

William J Murray: You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience, KF., Unless you have the plumb-line and the ruler for debugging your mind in your mind, and unless you can distinguish between those tools and the flawed aspects of your mind, you’ve just invalidated everything you have to say.

Exactly on the mark. Origenes

Origines, warrant is intelligible and expressible in language, symbols, drawings etc, so it can be and is communicated, making it external to the original party providing the warrant and open to evaluation by others. Seven year olds are familiar with Teacher correcting their sums which represent mental operations on inherently abstract entities derivable from {} --> 0 via von Neumann's construction and extensions to Z, Q, R, C, R* etc and linked relationships structures etc. Just so, I can write down how I doubt my self-aware existence but to do so rests on said self-awareness so once one is self aware that is undeniably and self-evidently real. You as onlooker may ponder whether I am a robot etc, but on comparing how we are creatures of like order, will find to moral certainty that the argument is rooted in a truthful report of experience of inner life. This has been noted already, with all due respect you are just doubling down in unresponsiveness to the core point. Positing a zombie world is of course yet another implicitly self-referential absurdity. KF kairosfocus

WJM, it seems I need to draw out a little more of the exchange in the linked comment, as suggesting mislabelling diverts from the substantial issue, where in the comment I took from your UD OP and answered on points. I do for record, not to go through yet another tangential, needless exchange: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-725627

>>Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory Posted on October 10, 2020 Author William J Murray Comments(34)>> 23: I take this to be a primary, in outline, source. >>By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view,>> 24: The point of departure, taken as a summary thesis, [a] that reality is monist, here mind (presumably, with local centres of self-awareness as described and commented on); [b] that this defines “experience” as “entirely mental”; [c] scientific findings support this view. 25; Monist views all face the issue of reduction of diversity to the one actual reality without entailing a thesis of grand delusion for our sense of individuality. Materialistic monism as well as mind-monism. Brahman is Atman, etc too. 26: Where, if all experience is entirely mental, it is caught up in that circle, there can be no corroborating scientific evidence external to mind, esp if the self-aware centres doing the science at least as extensions of mind, are delusional. Science and its empirical findings collapse. >>we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality.>> 27: Now, deeply problematical. >> I will attempt to roughly outline such a theory here, with the caveat that trying to express such a theory in language that is thoroughly steeped in external, physical world ideology is at best difficult. >> 28: If language makes it hard to say something, that may be a clue. >>Another caveat would be that, even though the categorical nature of the theory probably cannot be disproved (mental reality would account for all possible experiences,) some models might prove more useful and thus be better models.>> 29: Self-referential incoherence, tied to the principle of distinct identity [even as just a thought or symbol or chain thereof] is a reasonable criterion of falsity. >>IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths cannot be “disproved.”>> 30: Self-evidence claim. 31: The self evident is understood by those of reasonable mature experience as true once stated due to the meaning of what is stated, as necessarily true of order 2 + 3 = 5 [e.g. spread your five fingers into a two and a three then cluster together again], and as such on pain of immediate, patent absurdity on attempted denial. 32: MRT, regrettably, has none of these characteristics. It is not a general consensus of mature persons, it is not suppressed by clinging to absurdities such as we see for those who despise the concept of objective truth and knowledge, etc. It is a member of a particular family of worldviews, subject to bristling with difficulties and so to facing comparative difficulties. 33: What is undeniably self evident is that we are self aware, and that such self-awareness is primary and the context in which we become aware of ideas and experiences, including of our in common world. So, casting hyperskeptical doubts on the ability to think truly, logically and with responsible warrant is self-referential and self-defeating. >>For any particular theory to even get off the ground, there must be a structure that can organize it into something comprehensible, testable (for usefulness), and which corresponds to current experience while making predictions and retrodictions.>> 34: Yes. >>There are at least two indisputable structures to mind and how it generates experience; logic and mathematics. These may be two different ways of expressing the same universal principle of mind.>> 35: Mathematics and linked logic are a part of our self-aware mindedness, along with perceptions, memories, surprises, incidents, etc. >> In this model, this “mathlogical” principle is that which takes a set of information and processes it into experience. I’m going to simplify the term and say it this way: experience is the algorithmic expression of a data set.>> 36: Algorithms are not self-justifying. GIGO obtains, and this is a doorway for grand delusion, obviously so on reductionism to a physical computational substrate [rocks have no dreams], but also the case for a mind-computer. For, algorithms are mechanisms of rule based stepwise succession, they are not rational inference. Process logic may obtain, but as need to debug warns, process is no more reliable than its source: garbage in, garbage out. >>The data set that the algorithm processes can be roughly stated as that set of data which represents the mental structures we identify as individuals.>> 37: GIGO again. Data and structure are not truth or even reliability. >> No two individuals are comprised by the exact same identity set or they would be the same person, which follows the logical principle of identity.>> 38: i of course note the appeal to distinct identity, i/l/o the OP etc. LNC and LEM are close corollaries, hence the power of issues of self-referential incoherence. 39: So far, the point is, we hold distinctive identities as our data sets and presumably algorithms differ. >>And so, no two people experience the same exact thing even though the algorithm follows the same rules for expression.>> 40: I assume this obtains for an algorithm in common, there is no reason why all algorithms in the local will be uniform. Algorithms, after all, are expressions of a special kind of data, that used to give the stepwise procedures to execute on other data. Where, some are self-modifying and presumably all are subject to chance. >> Two individuals can be connect to the some or even much of the same data, but not all of it.>> 42: This speaks to the in-common world. Of course, where it is a delusion, the issues of GIGO obtain. >>Note: there are infinite varieties of data sets because there is infinite information available that can be arranged an infinite number of ways.>> 43: Take this as, in principle unlimited. >>Innumerable individuals can have included in their individual data sets large blocks of arranged information which they are, essentially, sharing.>> 44: in common. 45: But, why not subject to chance, noise etc leading to potentially radical diversity. >>The algorithmic expression of such data blocks, even with innumerable individual variances of data not contained in the shared data block, could result in what we observe as a shared, external, physical world.>> 46: The grand, more or less in common delusion. >> In fact, it may be that the “external physical world” is a data block that acts as filtering information that other individual information is processed through – at least to a large degree.>> 47: Is the grand delusion in charge? >>And so, we experience what seems to be a consistent, shared “world” that is governed by logic and math.>> 48: Yup, moves from may to credibly is. GIGO rules, therefore. >>However, the model is fundamentally incomplete unless we bring in another fundamental quality of experience: free will.>> 49: Algorithms do not have rational, responsible freedom, a fundamental issue faced by AI. >>In this model, free will is precisely defined as the capacity to unilaterally, free of both the data and the algorithmic process, direct one’s attention.>> 50: The ghost in the machine, in effect an emergent property. Rabbit out of a non existent hat . . .

Just for record and to make my main concerns clear. KF kairosfocus

@Origenes Again, you are not allowed to fantasize definitions for subjectivity and objectivity, you may only accurately reflect the logic used with objective and subjective statements in common discourse, in defining subjectivity and objectivity. To say the earth is flat is wrong, because the picture of a flat earth does not correspond 1 to 1 with the shape of the actual earth. The logic of objectivity is to make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation, forced by the evidence of it. mohammadnursyamsu

@KF The right approach is to investigate the logic in common discourse, so you know what your position in practise is. So then you get an intellectual position that is perfectly consistent with your common discourse position, and from there you can negotiotate to new ideas. And creationism is the intellectual position that is perfectly consistent with the logic used in common discourse. mohammadnursyamsu

KF:

Again, I exist is warranted, which makes it not just a perception of an agent but tested and found so, in this case to utter certainty.

Allow me to insert some commentary in your sentence: I exist is warranted [Solely by the subject who makes the statement. There is exactly zero warrant for conscious experience in the physical world. Famously Chalmers conceives of an entire zombie world, a world physically indistinguishable from this world but entirely lacking conscious experience] which makes it not just a perception of an agent [Nope. The fact that the only warrant available is the subject/agent involved, makes it precisely "just a perception of an agent"] but tested [tested by the subject only] and found so, in this case to utter certainty [found to utter certainty by the subject involved only]. Origenes

LCD:

Origenes: Both objective and subjective statements can be true or false.

 Oh dear… :)

An example of two objective statements, which cannot both be true: 1. The earth shape is flat. 2. The earth shape is ellipsoid. For both statements there is warrant in the ‘real’ world, thus both are ‘objective.’ Arguably the second statement has better / more extensive warrant. --- p.s. Note that today several influential physicists have adopted the ‘Holographic principle’, which, assuming that holograms are flat, lends credence to statement numero uno. Origenes

KF said:

In short, you confirm my point that our localised sense of individual conscious mindedness is a manifestation of a grand in common mind, so that these centres with a sense of a common external world are grandly delusional. So, utterly untrustworthy.

Mislabeling a category of experience doesn't make one "delusional," any more than calling what we experience physically "matter" is rendered a "delusion" just because we find out there's no actual 'matter" to be found.

So, how can delusional local centre W claim to have any better insight into M than delusional centre K? On what principles of credibility that are independent of the spreading miasma of delusion?

First, your use of "delusional" here is inappropriate, as I've pointed out. W can claim to have better insight under and about M via logic and mutually accessible evidence. Is there some other way you use?

How the self-referential incoherence arises is thus seen. First, at the level of the local self-aware centres then by extension to the central mind having such in it. If buggy in the local, buggy. If buggy, untrustworthy.

So your argument here is self-defeating because the only thing you have to argue with or from is ... your local, individual mind of personal experience and thought. All experience - whether of a physical, mutual world, or logic, or memory, or imagination, occurs in your local, individual mind/consciousness. If you place the plumb line measurement for "debugging" your worldview anywhere external of your conscious/mental experience, you have absolutely no access to it if it exists. But, fortunately, we do have the plumb line/ruler available to us in our local mind/conscious experience: it's called logic, math, self-evident truths, and necessary truths that follow from self-evident truths, inescapable truths about our existence, etc. These are the internally accessible plumb line and rulers that necessarily exist for any sentient, conscious beings in any possible world. IF your claim is that if one aspect of our local mind is mistaken or flawed, then we cannot trust any part of it, you have just said you cannot trust your own mind, including the logic and reasoning you find therein. Postulating a world external of your conscious experience doesn't help, cannot help, because you've just indicted every aspect of your mind and thus every mental/conscious experience you have and how you think of it. You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience, KF., Unless you have the plumb-line and the ruler for debugging your mind in your mind, and unless you can distinguish between those tools and t he flawed aspects of your mind, you've just invalidated everything you have to say. Your argument depends on you having internal access to those plumb-line debugging tools and being able to discern them from the flawed aspects of your own mind, and that has to occur entirely without access to anything external of what goes on in your local, individual mind, whether any world external of mind exists or not. William J Murray

PS: Again, I exist is warranted, which makes it not just a perception of an agent but tested and found so, in this case to utter certainty. But then, I have pointed this out repeatedly, you are being unresponsive. kairosfocus

Origenes, nope, this is not about subjective value, it is about presence and degree of warrant. A wallet with $ 1,000 in it is of more value than the same wallet empty. KF kairosfocus

KF:

Subjective claims or perceptions etc may be true or false, as in general may be objective ones, but having been tested and seen as reliable and credibly true, the latter are of higher epistemic value.

Value depends on one’s epistemology. One could have experienced a NDE and have exactly zero warrant for it in the ‘real world’ (yet another biased term!), but attach a higher epistemic value to it than anything else. And of course the same goes for “I exist” —conscious self-awareness—which also cannot be tested in the world of objects, to the point that people, cultures & materialistic science deny its existence. Origenes

Origenes Both objective and subjective statements can be true or false.

:) Oh dear... Lieutenant Commander Data

Origenes, what is internal to the subject may or may not be warranted. Perceived, believed, imagined, conceived, considered etc, yes. But the testing process that leads to warrant is after that. Subjective claims or perceptions etc may be true or false, as in general may be objective ones, but having been tested and seen as reliable and credibly true, the latter are of higher epistemic value. BTW, obviously this includes { } and its von Neumann extensions etc, which are not physically instantiated in any world. It also includes how, with limitations -- a key caveat -- we generally take what we see and hear as sounds as being rooted in real sources, reasonably accurately sensed. We are at a sad pass as a civilisation because corrosive hyperskepticism has led us to undermine our perceived ability to credibly, reliably, accurately recognise what is real. KF kairosfocus

MNY, my longstanding remarks on fundamentals of logic, here. Start with bright red ball A on a table in the world. See how distinct identity, non contradiction and excluded middle emerge. Extend to being, thence power to ask why of being, thence possible vs impossible and contingent vs necessary across possible worlds. Thence causality. Draw in error proneness and need to distinguish perception, idea, inference, opinion and reliable, tested, credibly true knowledge. Draw in the self-evident certainly true case. Recognise truth as what accurately describes states of affairs and/or entities etc. Apply to structure and quantity, i.e. Math. And more. Then, address the phenomenon of how arguments implicitly appeal to first duties, including those objecting to such duties. Voila. KF kairosfocus

Here I offer simple definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ that IMHO make sense: Objective — A statement is objective when it can be warranted in the world of objects, that is, outside the subject. Subjective — A statement is subjective when it can be warranted solely by the subject. Both objective and subjective statements can be true or false. Therefore I oppose the biased usage of the term ‘objective’ as synonymous for ‘truth’ and the biased usage of the term ‘subjective’ as if it means ‘error’ or ‘false’. In line with that I would like to do away with empty terms like ‘objective truth’, ‘objectively true’ and so on. Self-evident truths, such as “2 + 2 =4” and “I exist”, can either be objective or subjective. “2 + 2 = 4” has plenty of objective support (outside the subject), but “I exist” has none. Origenes

WJM, I do not have the energy to go through yet another round on a distraction on a thread where there is already much distraction from a matter that is both pivotal and resolvable on inescapable first truths . . . which BTW you implicitly appealed to yet again, for rhetorical leverage. What I will note is that a comparison to a networked simulation is rough but sufficiently relevant to point to the grand delusion fallacy of mental reality theory as you put forward. KF PS: I link: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-725627 after many contentious months and much side tracking, further for record https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/sabine-hossenfelder-argues-that-the-multiverse-is-no-better-than-god/#comment-735722 I clip an excerpt from the first, on my core comment above:

[WJM:] >>Nope, because under MRT, there is a distinction between self and mind. Please note that I never say “your mind” or “my mind.” Everything exists in mind.>> 17: In short, you confirm my point that our localised sense of individual conscious mindedness is a manifestation of a grand in common mind, so that these centres with a sense of a common external world are grandly delusional. So, utterly untrustworthy. 18: So, how can delusional local centre W claim to have any better insight into M than delusional centre K? On what principles of credibility that are independent of the spreading miasma of delusion? >> There is no world external of mind.>> 19: This of course further carries forward the point. >> There are countless “selfs” in mind. Thus, nothing about MRT is “fatally self-referential.”>> 20: How the self-referential incoherence arises is thus seen. First, at the level of the local self-aware centres then by extension to the central mind having such in it. If buggy in the local, buggy. If buggy, untrustworthy.

More can be said, but the point will be clear enough on the architecture of the MRT, and why it fails as self-referentially self-undermining despite its network character. kairosfocus

Ram

Querius no, I don’t understand everything.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for the admission.

@Querius :) Querius I don't know if you noticed but you have this dialoque with Ram in his/her terms and her terms are literally the satan's point of view(satan's ideas can indeed produce cognitive dissonance). Ram engage only with people that play after her rules : satan's frame of thinking :focus on "injustice" "eternal punishment vs temporal sins" and ignore all the facts that are going against this point of view. Why the truth that Jesus Christ(Son of God) died for all humans to be saved is ignored by Ram and she is pedaling only on "eternal torment" ? How in the world Ram(a limited ,created being) can be more moral than the source of morality(eternal being )? If you observe she doesn't want to focus on her "authority" on morality /if she has the authority and knowledge to make this judgement but to focus only on the "injustice" of "eternal torment" (vs temporal sins) . It's a kind of brainwashing to force you think in her frame. Yep , ignore WHO(a non-authority) is doing the statement ignore all the facts(For God so loved the world, that he gave...) that contradict her optuse and limited view and focus ONLY on "eternal punishment vs temporal sin " :) Indeed if she brings you in this narrow place of thinking seem a big injustice. Hahaha! But you don't have to listen to her stupid "focus" game and play after her rules . Think illusionist ,deck of card, eyes, trick. Lieutenant Commander Data

KF said:

WJM, relabel all you want, the attempt to deem the physical in common world we share as an inaccurate perception opens up grand delusion. KF

I never made any such attempt, and I just corrected you on this a few comments ago in this thread. William J Murray

Sorry, Origenes. Meant Querius with the smoking thing. William J Murray

The fundamentals are easy because: 1. They are not complex 2. The fundamentals are already known intuitively in common discourse. 3. It is further made obvious in religion. Ofcourse, anything can become difficult, if you don't obey the rules. All here are haughty. They just bloviate, and do not investigate the logic in common discourse. mohammadnursyamsu

Querius @545 More irrelevant meandering that does not address the need/desire for God to punish people with eternal torment. no, I don’t understand everything. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for the admission. --Ram ram

Querius: Do you you really think William J Murray and perhaps other smokers do a cost/benefit analysis with respect to the immense pleasures of smoking cigarettes compared to the momentary inconvenience of suffering and dying from cancer? Really? See WJM's answer @553. As for other smokers, you're free to ask them. None of this has anything to do with eternal torment. --Ram ram

F/N: I see some are still trying to play around with theological matters with non experts, on a forum that is not properly suited to such. They have already been advised to go to appropriate fora with relevant experts available. KF kairosfocus

WJM, relabel all you want, the attempt to deem the physical in common world we share as an inaccurate perception opens up grand delusion. KF kairosfocus

Queirius allow me rephrase my question again: Suppose that God with his infinite knowledge, wisdom, and justice would ask you to be his new prosecutor. Suppose further that God promises to give you an extraordinary amount of grace, so that you would be able to accomplish your new job without failure. Your job would be presenting evidence against human sinners and bring them to justice — that is, send them to hell for eternity. Would you accept the job? If not, why not? Origenes

Origenes(=WJM) Your job would be presenting evidence against sinners and bring them to justice — that is, send them to hell for eternity.

:) God sends people to heaven. People -in partnership with the devil-come to hell . Now you know you can't unknow from this very second. Lieutenant Commander Data

Origenes @554, While your hypothetical question is not something that would ever happen, let me try to meet you part way. Both Moses and Gideon considered themselves supremely unqualified for what God asked them to do. But in both cases God also gave them grace to be able to accomplish their tasks, though not without failures. Grace is what God provides us to complete the seemingly impossible. Put in a similar position, I know that I would not do any better than Moses or Gideon, but God would help me every step of the way. The Apostle Paul scolds the believers at Corinth for involving each other in lawsuits. He wrote them that they should be able to resolve such things within their own community:

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? -1 Corinthians 6:3 (NASB)

By "judging the angels," it's likely to mean the powerful non-human entities that have caused so much strife and suffering on earth (and are doing so now, worldwide). Since they introduced sin into humanity, it seems fitting that their victims will be given the power and authority to sit in judgment over them but in humility. -Q Querius

Queirius allow me rephrase my question: Suppose that God with his infinite knowledge, wisdom, and justice would ask you to be his new prosecutor — because he knows that you are perfectly qualified for the job. Your job would be presenting evidence against sinners and bring them to justice — that is, send them to hell for eternity. Would you accept the job? If not, why not? - - - - WJM @553 I've never asked you about your smoking habits, but that's good to know. Origenes

Origenes, I smoke because I enjoy it. If it shortens my lifespan, that's just an added bonus. If I have suffering coming my way, under my worldview quitting smoking isn't going to mitigate or delay it one bit. How does that risk/reward calculation come out? William J Murray

KF said:

WJM, why the gratuitous false accusation?

Asks the king of gratuitous false accusations.

Recall, Physicist today, Physics student then. It was then and is today my business to study and take seriously the in common physical world. I am also aware today and would have instantly seen then that refusal to take such evidence seriously is self defeating; if our senses and cognition are fundamentally unreliable, it’s over for our credibility of mind. Which would reduce attempted discussion to empty noise. KF

How many times have you made the gratuitous, false accusation that I have ever implied that our senses and cognition are fundamentally unreliable? 20? 50? I've corrected you every time, and yet here you are, doing it again. Also, when have I ever claimed that we do not experience an in-common physical world? Errr.. that's right. Never. As I've tried to tell you many times KF, MRT is not what you imagine it is under your ERT. It cannot be understood or evaluated under ERT. It's like trying to understand Football with a basketball rulebook. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this because you apparently cannot peek out from behind your worldview even for a second. William J Murray

KF said:

Origenes he alluded to earlier exchanges.

That never happened. KF is again mistaking his inference for my implication. I corrected him several times about this and his false "delusion" claim. I told him that a mislabeling a category of experience does not mean that category of experience is a delusion nor does it mean our senses or cognition are unreliable. He's trying to evaluate mental reality theory through the ontological and epistemological lens of his objective-external-world ontology and epistemology. IOW, he's throwing foul flags on football players for not dribbling the ball like they do in his game, basketball. William J Murray

MNY, critical examination of our worldviews and other hard questions is not rubbish, it is hard to do well. KF kairosfocus

Origines and Ac, did you notice I used something like and specifically, distributed network? That should tell you I was giving a rough sketch. KF kairosfocus

Origenes @521,

Queirius I have a question for you: Suppose that God would ask you to be his new prosecutor. So, your job would be presenting evidence against sinners and bring them to justice — that is, send them to hell for eternity. Would you accept the job? If not, why not?

Fortunately, the job is already taken by a being with infinite knowledge, wisdom, and justice, who can do a life review of ALL of a person’s attitudes, motives, and actions. I would clearly be unqualified. -Q Querius

Ram @520

Querius @514, You apparently are unfamiliar with the concept of cost/benefit. From what I’ve read from WJM, I’m sure that WJM has a clear cost/benefit value in his mind with regard to smoking.

Do you you really think William J Murray and perhaps other smokers do a cost/benefit analysis with respect to the immense pleasures of smoking cigarettes compared to the momentary inconvenience of suffering and dying from cancer? Really? How about a Bayesian analysis? Do they do that too? -Q Querius

@KF Philosophy in general is mostly rubbish. Philosophy, like psychology, is full of people who go to study it for selfhelp, because they are terrible at it. And then these people who are terrible at philosophy, eventually go teach philosophy, and formulate the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. You continue to have no point whatsoever. The only correct answer is the accurate description of the rules used in subjective statement and objective statements in common discourse. Wikipedia, Cicero, Plato, philosophy in general, they are only relevant if they at least try to accurrately describe the rules used in subjective and objective statements in common discourse. But they don't even try to do that. mohammadnursyamsu

Ram @518,

Querius @515 I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that Wills changing the Wills of others is necessarily a bad or undesirable thing. It happens all the time. You’re trying to do it to me right now. Nobody has anything like absolute free will.

Here’s where. Notice that I used the word coercion. Legally, coercion is considered an intrusion on someone’s free will. Otherwise, strong-arm robbery would be considered simply a financial transaction, rape would be considered simply a social interaction, and pedophilia would be considered simply a teaching activity.

As for the creator communicing a consequence of eternal torment to humans, I’m sure he could figure out how to do it without too many negative effects. Even if it caused a bit of psychological upset, it’s better than eternal torment.

In relatively rare situations, I’ve heard of Jesus revealing Himself to a person in a dream or a vision, especially in regions where religious proselytizing can result in the death penalty. But the Bible tells us that God wants to draw us to Him in love rather than by intimidation. I’m sure you recognized that difference when you tried to convince someone to marry you, right?

At any rate, never once have I ever had the idea that eternal torment would be a proper remedy for anything my children have done or could do. The punishments I have meted out to my children involved full disclosure, that is, I never punished them for anything for which they had no clear understanding of the consequences.

Haven’t you ever heard

For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to SAVE the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Think back to the burning building. The resident is arguing with the firefighters that burning to death is not a fit punishment for their not accepting help and getting on the ladder.

Why, in your view, is eternal torment a justified punishment? What function does it serve to keep individuals suffering without end, if there is no chance of rehabilitation? Why not just snuff them out?

There’s a place away from God’s presence originally prepared for the devil and his angels. You don’t have to join them if you don’t want to, but you need to make the decision now. The “Lake of Fire” is a place of eternal destruction comparable to the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. That’s where broken, rotten, and dead things were thrown. No, I don’t know all the details and I suspect no one does. But God is perfectly just. You seem to be hung up on the word “eternal.” Perhaps, it’s like a black hole. As you might know, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity indicates that time slows down in the presence of gravity. This has been demonstrated experimentally. Time is also relative to the observer. If the observer is a particle falling into a black hole, time won’t appear to be slowed and it becomes absorbed in a fraction of a second. However, if the observer is at a distance, the particle will appear to be nearly frozen in time and eternity. Again, I don’t know the details because they are not given in the scriptures.

Something is missing from your theology. If you don’t have the answer, and apparently you don’t, wouldn’t the honest thing to do be to forthrightly admit it? –Ram

My theology is based on what’s revealed in the scriptures. And no, I don’t understand everything. I don’t think anyone does.

Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” -Isaiah 55:6-9 (NIV)

Isn’t that what you’d expect? Or would you expect to clearly understand everything about God's thoughts and actions? -Q Querius

@Origenes: Is it WJM’s claim that the world is something like a computer simulation?

No, that's not what WJM claims. And kairosfocus knows that. Here are some quotes from WJM:

WJM: However, under a monistic mind premise, we are not talking about a “simulation” world. A simulation is an imitation of something else, a fake version of the real thing. If we live in a mental monism, the mind is not “simulating” anything; the experiences we have are the reality of what existence in a mental monism is like. (...) (An aside: it’s ironic that KF laments that under mental monism, our physical world becomes a simulation, when logically, dualism necessarily makes our physical experience a simulation by definition – it is a mental simulation of something else, an extra-mental world. It is only under mental monism that our experience is factually not a simulation.)

AndyClue

KF

This includes things that in effect boil down to the apparent world is something like a distributed computer simulation.

Is it WJM's claim that the world is something like a computer simulation? Origenes

Origenes he alluded to earlier exchanges. My point is that any species of grand delusion is self-defeating. This includes things that in effect boil down to the apparent world is something like a distributed computer simulation. KF kairosfocus

KF:

... if our senses and cognition are fundamentally unreliable, it’s over for our credibility of mind.

Where exactly did WJM make the argument that our senses and cognition are fundamentally unreliable? I cannot find it. Can you provide a quotation? Origenes

WJM, why the gratuitous false accusation? Recall, Physicist today, Physics student then. It was then and is today my business to study and take seriously the in common physical world. I am also aware today and would have instantly seen then that refusal to take such evidence seriously is self defeating; if our senses and cognition are fundamentally unreliable, it's over for our credibility of mind. Which would reduce attempted discussion to empty noise. KF kairosfocus

MNY, I normally have little in common with Wikipedia; often I cite them as speaking against interest. Here, they are actually apt, as concerning our error proneness:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination [–> notice, error-proneness issues]). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. [--> or group of such]

KF kairosfocus

KF @537, For a guy who claims to have a duty to truth, you apparently don't mind lying by evasion and omission. William J Murray

WJM, again, you have put up something that collapses in the starting gates. I had then and have now no good reason to imagine that the in common physical world is an illusion. KF kairosfocus

@KF It's a dramatic explanation you make with the error proneness. It's also quite meaningless to the points at issue. It's not an accurate description of the logic used with subjecivity and objectivity in common discourse, therefore it must be thrown out. Your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity come from your fantasy. The logic of subjectivity and objectivity that is in common discourse was put there by God. mohammadnursyamsu

Origenes Note how “existing outside of mind”, that is existing in the world of objects, makes the term ‘objectivity’ perfectly logical. Objectivity is what comes from the world of objects, as opposed to subjectivity which comes from inner world of the subject.

Stop humiliating yourself. You try to spin the sense of objectivity to fit your proven false idea . Objectivity comes from objective(impartial/unbiassed) not from an object(a material thing).

For some obscure reason Kairosfocus insists on making the claim that the hyper-subjective statement “I exist” is an ‘objective truth’ — whatever that means

Stop squirming around you will learn to live being proved wrong .

Ram Why, in your view, is eternal torment a justified punishment? What function does it serve to keep individuals suffering without end, if there is no chance of rehabilitation? Why not just snuff them out?

Wow , another one who is more kind and compassionate than God Himself. Impressive. God died for our sins but I'm sure you can do more than Him because you seem to be more kind-hearted . So you said it in comments that you are better than God , now it's time to prove it practically so what is your evidence that you are more kind than God please no bald assertions. Ok? " Eternal torment" is a free choice of free people and not a punishment from God . God wants that all people be saved but He can't trespass the free will of man . God came on Earth and died for the sins of all people. He virtually forgave all sins of all people from all times but can't save people by force He needs their free will to accept Him and His sacrifice for them. Who reject Him reject to be forgiven ,reject His inestimable gift. Lieutenant Commander Data

KF @531, For God's sake, that's not what I asked you. I'm not asking you to justify your belief in that perspective. Will you not answer the question? William J Murray

MNY, demonstrably, projection on your part. Enough has been explained to see why there is a need to provide warrant towards reliability and accuracy given our error proneness. Were you taught to cross check your sums in elementary school? That should give a clue or two. KF kairosfocus

@Jerry It's not really the point to offer something new, when the debaters are being immoral. Animated Dust, KF, Querius, WJM, Origenes, yourself, et. you are all guilty of fantasizing the defintion of subjectivity and objectivity. Instead of (trying to ) accurately reflect the logic used in common discourse with subjective statements, and objective statements. mohammadnursyamsu

WJM, only a few of our civilisation have ever tried to imagine that the external world is a grand illusion; that can be one way to view Plato's parable of the cave. They immediately run into self-referential incoherence by way of discrediting their own senses and mental faculties; dead end. As a student of Physics and math at the time, such an absurdity would have been immediately recognised and rejected for what it is, a self-defeating snare. KF kairosfocus

KF said:

So, logic, epistemology and encounter with the living God came first, not any particular frame apart from recognition that the worldviews and presuppositions concept was pivotal.

So, at the time, you did not believe on any level conscious or subconscious, perhaps as something that you just took for granted, that there was an objective world of matter and energy that existed external of your (and anyone's) mind/consciousness that we are all accessing and interacting with? William J Murray

The cardinal rule of UD. From 10 days ago and 250 comments ago @284

I am actually trying to end the debate. Nothing new is being offered. All are repeats of previous threads. If all goes according to history, my attempts will be ignored. This has all happened before and goes in circles as a few have no interest in doing anything other than proving others wrong and must insult them to do so. For what were they inslulted? The person insulted was just espousing what most have accepted for millennia. The person insulted tries to defend themselves by trying to explain and will get insulted for doing so. It goes on and on as if the point of view was not understood when it absolutely clearly understood. The best strategy is when another insults another or provides an inane reply, is to just drop it and not answer. But then some will take that as acquiesce and that they won. Thomas More strategy – TMS

jerry

Defenitions: Subjectivity : to choose an opinion, on what it was that made a choice turn out the way it did Objectivity : to make a 1 to 1 corresponding model in the mind, of a creation, forced by the evidence of it That is the actual underlying logic everyone uses in subjective statements and objective statements, in common discourse. So all subjective statements, like saying a painting is beautiful, are in reference to a decisionmaker. To say a painting is beautiful, then the decisionmaker has a love for the way the painting looks in his heart, out of which love he chooses to express the word "beautiful". All objective statements are basically just copies. To say there is a camel out the back, just copies in words, the scene of there being a camel in the back. That the camel is a "creation", means there first was a possibility of the camel being out theback, and then this possibility was made the present, by choice. mohammadnursyamsu

WJM, as a note, I have sought to frame my understanding of being, cosmology and knowledge in general on what I have found to be reliable. As a young uni student I underwent a two-year personal reconstruction of my worldview, which could have gone in many directions, though it was anchored to two convictions, the reality of my relationship with God through living encounter with Christ and the general reliability of the scriptures. The result was shaped by what decades later I have summarised as first duties of reason though there was no systematisation of a framework. I was also pretty well convinced that socialist utopianism -- especially Marxism -- was a grand failure and menace to liberty under law. So, logic, epistemology and encounter with the living God came first, not any particular frame apart from recognition that the worldviews and presuppositions concept was pivotal. KF kairosfocus

profiling the cliff's edge https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/barna-profiles-a-generation-on-the-cliffs-crumbling-edge-78-million-us-millennials/ kairosfocus

Origines, a pretzel. There are two relevant perspectives on absolute truth, the latest straw you are clutching at. First, the ideal upper end of the spectrum of warrant that establishes objectivity. That is the sense in which an absolute truth is a case -- the strongest case -- of objective truth. In the second, warrant is not particularly in view and we are looking at purity and want of dilution with adulterants: the truth, the whole relevant truth, nothing but the truth. But how do we become confident of such a state? Warrant, to utter certainty, and a broad enough span of warranted claims to cover material issues so we are not looking at half truths or truths augmented by toxic error or falsehood. Again, you have tried to wedge things apart that belong together. I suppose, in a day that has twisted tolerance to support relativism, subjectivism and emotivism, objectivity, warrant and absoluteness of truth as such are unfamiliar and may be seen as outdated, suspect and discredited concepts. So much the worse for our day and for those who betrayed their solemn duties of intellectual leadership to put us here on a crumbling cliff's edge as a civilisation. It is time for a counterculture. KF kairosfocus

KF @523

Absolute truth is an ideal degree of truthfulness attainable in some cases where warrant is utterly certain; self evidence being an example, in which case it is the upper limit to the spectrum of objectivity where possibility of error has been wrung out completely.

As is the case with "I exist". So, according to you, "I exist" is an absolute truth. Is 'objective truth' the same as 'absolute truth'? Not according to you (see @516). So, "I exist" is, according to you, an absolute truth and not a objective truth. Got it? Origenes

PPS: Absolute truth is an ideal degree of truthfulness attainable in some cases where warrant is utterly certain; self evidence being an example, in which case it is the upper limit to the spectrum of objectivity where possibility of error has been wrung out completely. It is also a case where we have truth, the whole relevant truth and nothing but the truth, without particular regard to how we can be confident of such. kairosfocus

Origines, the context of objectivity has been explained as a prudent response to our error-proneness. Which is where warrant comes from as a relevant consideration. And, Mathematical entities such as {} are clearly objective but are abstracta contemplated by minds. So are states of affairs such as the correspondence between a true statement and the reality it describes. KF PS: This is one time Wikipedia is apt:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination [--> notice, error-proneness issues]). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence . . .

kairosfocus

Queirius I have a question for you: Suppose that God would ask you to be his new prosecutor. So, your job would be presenting evidence against sinners and bring them to justice — that is, send them to hell for eternity. Would you accept the job? If not, why not? Origenes

Querius @514, You apparently are unfamiliar with the concept of cost/benefit. From what I've read from WJM, I'm sure that WJM has a clear cost/benefit value in his mind with regard to smoking. None of that post applies to eternal torment, which is a completely different question. For any sane person who clearly understands what eternal torment putatively is (as your particular theology asserts), no temporary benefit would be worth eternal torment. ram

Ram on LCD:

No comment necessary.

Indeed. LCD is a clown. Origenes

Querius @515 I don't know where you're getting the idea that Wills changing the Wills of others is necessarily a bad or undesirable thing. It happens all the time. You're trying to do it to me right now. Nobody has anything like absolute free will. As for the creator communicing a consequence of eternal torment to humans, I'm sure he could figure out how to do it without too many negative effects. Even if it caused a bit of psychological upset, it's better than eternal torment. At any rate, never once have I ever had the idea that eternal torment would be a proper remedy for anything my children have done or could do. The punishments I have meted out to my children involved full disclosure, that is, I never punished them for anything for which they had no clear understanding of the consequences. Why, in your view, is eternal torment a justified punishment? What function does it serve to keep individuals suffering without end, if there is no chance of rehabilitation? Why not just snuff them out? Something is missing from your theology. If you don't have the answer, and apparently you don't, wouldn't the honest thing to do be to forthrightly admit it? --Ram ram

Ram: I never once have had the idea of throwing them into eternal torment no matter what the do. LCD: Ok ,I understood that your kids can do whatever they want without consequences. If they want to set your house on fire or to play with guns/knifes/other dangerous tools or to kill you/your pets/other people you will let them do it. So sweet. Now I know that are not a monstrous parent you just have mental problems. No comment necessary. --Ram ram

Let us return to the straightforward clear understandable definition of 'objectivity' by the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Objective – based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

Note how “existing outside of mind”, that is existing in the world of objects, makes the term ‘objectivity’ perfectly logical. Objectivity is what comes from the world of objects, as opposed to subjectivity which comes from inner world of the subject. For some obscure reason Kairosfocus insists on making the claim that the hyper-subjective statement “I exist” is an 'objective truth' — whatever that means. One problem for Kairosfocus is that “I exist” does not sit well with the Merriam Webster definition, since “I exist” cannot be said to exist “outside of mind.” Kairosfocus has continually argued that because “I exist” is self-evident it is ‘objectively’ true. This is a bald assertion, he did not attempt to explain why the term ‘objectively’ is linked to self-evident statements.

Kairosfocus: “I exist, a perception of consciousness, is self-evident and objectively true. KF” “(…) principles that can be seen as self-evident and thus objectively the case as true.” “Being self-aware that I exist, is a case where the warrant is undeniably certain for the one involved, is self-evident and undeniably true thus warranted to utter certainty. It therefore passes the successful warrant test and is not only a matter of subjective awareness but is objectively warranted.”

The reader might want to that in other threads Kairosfocus has made very different claims. In the quote below Kairos claims that self-evident undeniable truths (such as “I exist”) are not ‘objective truths’ at all, instead, they are ‘absolute truths.’

Kairosfocus: (...) objectivity is not synonymous with either infallibility or absolute truth. Something is infallibly true where it is beyond possibility of error, typically due to some form or other of self-evident undeniability, e.g. that ||| + || –> ||||| which we may symbolise as 3 + 2 = 5. Absolute truth is the whole, untainted, undiluted correct description of a matter in hand: truth, the whole relevant truth, nothing but the truth. (Hence the famous court room oath.) By contrast, objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”)

Origenes

Ram @500,

Querius: how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will? Ram: By communicating with them. And persuading them. Just as you do with various people in your life, I would assume. Have you ever had children?

Wouldn't that constitute coercion for most people? Wouldn't it scare the **** out of them and obliterate their free will? Imagine that happening to you. I think you might also doubt your sanity or assume you experienced a hallucination. Hallucinations are not uncommon. https://www.medicaldaily.com/5-most-common-types-hallucinations-401071 Yes, we have children. A couple of times, I heard from one of them, "Dad, you were right." Blew me away, although "being right" wasn't EVER my goal.

Persons attempt to persuade persons constantly with the intent of altering their choices. That’s part of the dynamic of personal interaction. You’re doing that in this thread.

Yes, indeed. But how many times have you heard anyone say, or you saying to them, "You know you're right. What you're saying really makes sense and you've convinced me." Almost never, both here and in business or academia. Generally, the best to hope for is, "You made me think about it." There are some people here who are insightful and I appreciate them making me think about an issue, even if I don't always agree with them. -Q Querius

Ram @471,

Dying of cancer is not the same as eternal torment.

I didn’t say they were the same. They're not even spelled with the same first letter. But let me illustrate the principle. William J Murray stated in @413 that

I was just out having a smoke on my porch and I had an epiphany about this.

So, I think I’m safe to believe that he’s a smoker. But there are only a limited number of reasonable possibilities as to why: A. He’s clueless about the danger of smoking, and he hasn’t read the warning label. B. He denies the medical studies linking smoking with lung cancer, as did the big tobacco companies in the 1980s. C. He considers himself a meat robot pre-programmed or predestined to smoke, so he’s not at fault. D. He loves the pleasure of smoking so much he overrides his intellectual knowledge of the consequences of smoking. So, which of these in your opinion is the most likely reason? -Q Querius

Kind of hard for me to say whether or not I have a personal epistemology

:) You talked with some dead people , you have the pleasure as your god and ultimate goal , you hate Christianity(Cross?), you have MRT and nothing comes to your mind?

Conditions for a duty to exist are not themselves duties.

:) Oops, you add more and more duties/commandments (copyrighted by WJM) ? Maybe you should stop confirming Kairosfocus with every comment you post? Lieutenant Commander Data

LCD asks:

Are you objective and not bound of any epistemology ? You would be the first one I met

Definition of epistemology:

"the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Kind of hard for me to say whether or not I have a personal epistemology, given that definition. I certainly don't have one that I think objectively applies to everyone else.

Necessary conditions? Well…maybe you want to rephrase to not sound like a …duty? You fight the concept of duty of Kairosfocus and place instead your own duties? You are very confused .

Conditions for a duty to exist are not themselves duties. You can claim I have a duty under the law to jump rope for an hour on Saturday; if I ask you to prove it, you can look up the statute and show it to me. That will show me what the authority is (state, federal, local) and what the penalty is for not obeying the law. The ink on the paper or the text on the website are not duties; they are physical facts that represent the duty in question and show that the conditions for the duty actually exist, therefore the duty actually exists. William J Murray

Correction to my post at #497: "It’s also apparent to me that you don’t consider your ontology/epistemology as objectively real and valid for everyone, and that they are operating from it whether they know it or not, whether they agree to it or not." Take the "don't" out. William J Murray

Have been following this for a while and have completely lost track of what the original discussion point was. But this is normal for many online blogs. The existence of objective moral truths is a non-warranted conclusion. Not that they do not exist, but that they are not warranted if morality is examined objectively. What can be claimed to be objectively true? 1) That humans are emotional beings. 2) That every human, with the exception of a very small minority, have their own idea of right and wrong (moral values). 3) That humans, when they do something they believe to be wrong, have an emotional response (guilt/remorse). The question that has no warranted conclusion is whether there are objective moral truths, or are they merely subjective derivations based on upbringing and the surrounding society? Are the moral “truths” in an urban environment different than those in a rural environment? Are they different in a patriarchal society than they are in a matriarchal society? Than a nomadic society? Are they different in a pre-industrial society? Are they different in a theistic society than they are in a secular society? Joe Schooner

Origines, nope and directly parallel to mathematical phenomena. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @505

The pivotal issue is accessible warrant communicable to others [as is the self evidence of “I exist”] ..

This is exactly not the pivotal issue wrt "I exist". The warrant for the existence of one’s conscious self-awareness lies solely in the personal experience of its undeniability — its self-evidency. Testimony of others has no effect whatsoever on the credibility of “I exist” for oneself. One could be surrounded by solely empty spacetime and conclude “I exist” and be as certain about it as one could ever possibly be. One could be surrounded by people who all declare that no one exists, and still be completely certain that one exists. This means that communicability to others is irrelevant, does not serve a purpose WRT warrant, since others have no bearing whatsoever on the credibility/warrant of “I exist.” Origenes

Ram Eternal torment is not a necessary entailment of actions having consequences. My children have violated my rules many times. I never once have had the idea of throwing them into eternal torment no matter what the do.

Ok ,I understood that your kids can do whatever they want without consequences. If they want to set your house on fire or to play with guns/knifes/other dangerous tools or to kill you/your pets/other people you will let them do it. So sweet. Now I know that are not a monstrous parent you just have mental problems. Lieutenant Commander Data

Davidl1 Again, I’m not an expert

Why are you not an expert ?

WJM That’s how you interpret it because of your commitment to your epistemology and your sense of duty.

Are you objective and not bound of any epistemiology ? You would be the first one I met . :)

Argument: The necessary conditions for any actual duty to exist are

:) Necessary conditions? Well...maybe you want to rephrase to not sound like a ...duty? You fight the concept of duty of Kairosfocus and place instead your own duties? You are very confused . Lieutenant Commander Data

PS: are 0 and 2 + 3 = 5 relative to our imagination or the power balance of our community? See 483 above. kairosfocus

Origines, scroll up to my discussion of mathematical abstracta. The pivotal issue is accessible warrant communicable to others [as is the self evidence of "I exist"], not whether the objective entity or state of affairs is a physical or abstract phenomenon (for want of a better word). All of this draining foot-dragging resistance to what 7 year olds readily know is telling us that a major ideological commitment is at stake and will be protected by any and all reinforcement to hold it in place. This is then influencing many who would otherwise see right through the game. This reminds me of the current definitional switcheroo on vaccines https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine?justPublished=true KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @496

I have shown, per undeniable certainty that the fact of self-aware consciousness is self-evident.

Sure, but is utterly irrelevant, since self-evidency does not equal "existing outside of the mind."

This [warrant] is what moves it into the onward category, objective truth.

Nope, for something to be 'objective' it has to exist "outside of mind", “existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions”, it has to be “accessible to others”, and so on. Try reading post @494 again. Origenes

PS: To one who is numb to the voice of truth, right reason and resulting warrant have but little force. Another warning:

Matt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

kairosfocus

WJM, here is what I had in mind, and this assessment on direct observation of a decaying culture is painful but needs to be pondered:

Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous [= have lost morally driven sensitivity] and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. [--> an addiction cycle of desensitisation and ever increasing need for stronger stimulation to break through the numbness . . . ] 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,6 which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another . . .

KF kairosfocus

D1, I am not going into a grand exposition of the doctrine of eternality, judgement eschatology etc. That is not UD's purpose nor is it advisable given the sorts of accusations that are routinely made. Besides, UD does not dispose of a panel of theological and philosophical experts with time for such. I took a very limited focus to rebalance some rhetoric above, and I point to Ge Hinnon as a key scriptural model on what happens when per Rom 1 God is locked out; noting that soul unlike brain has no parts to disintegrate leading to a very different property on durability. There are other places where such can be profitably pursued, including on the nature and durability of rational soul. My view, on experience, is that many Christians, parsons and even theologians are lacking in sound background on this area and amateurish, ill instructed well meaning interventions (such as by flawed analogies) will only feed the distractive rhetorical fire; I noted above on the pivotal importance of the venom in the veins perspective in Scripture as giving some rebalancing because of that. This thread is about the objectivity of moral truth, and by extension the significance of moral government as regulating our rationality itself. Duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc are in key part constitutive of responsible rationality and also of sound civilisation, in the guise, core of natural, built in law. It is the betrayal by intellectual and cultural leadership across several generations that has led us to a sad, ruinous pass today. And reformation is desperately needed. KF kairosfocus

Querius: how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will? By communicating with them. And persuading them. Just as you do with various people in your life, I would assume. Have you ever had children? Persons attempt to persuade persons constantly with the intent of altering their choices. That's part of the dynamic of personal interaction. You're doing that in this thread. ram

LCD: I explained why. No you didn't. You replied... "This eternal torment is not an idea...." Bald assertion. "it’s a reality" Bald assertion. "that explain [sic] the fundamental importance of moral law." Those bald assertions are not explanations. "Our actions and thoughts have REAL consequences." Eternal torment is not a necessary entailment of actions having consequences. My children have violated my rules many times. I never once have had the idea of throwing them into eternal torment no matter what the do. I believe those who believe in a creator who would torment conscious entities forever are sorely misguided. They cannot prove such a creator exists yet are attracted to such a belief. It reveals the kind of the personalities that such believers have. Astonishing to those of us who repulsed by the very idea of such a monstrous creator. ram

KF, thanks for the response. I see references in Romans 2 to "wrath and anger" for people who sin, but I didn't see anything that jumps out as "eternal torment". Romans 2:7 contrasts the "wrath and anger" with eternal life, so that seems consistent with eternal destruction as the consequence. Certainly something to be avoided, but not eternal torment. Regarding the soul, Matthew 10:28 says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell". Since the soul is "destroyed" (not tormented) it seems that it won't suffer eternally. Also, Ezekiel 18:4 says "The soul who sins is the one who will die.". Those seem consistent with the idea that death, not torment, is the consequence. Again, I'm not an expert, and I know there's a lot of context that needs to be taken into account. It just seems from what I remember that eternal torment was not really consistent with what I've read. davidl1

KF said:

Such, reveals a breakdown of sensitivity, and requires rehabilitation.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but what it appears to be is that because I don't feel a duty to truth (lack of sensitivity) that you think I need to be trained into feeling like I have a duty. Isn't that what "sensitivity" to something implies? A feeling? Did you just admit that "duty to truth" is a feeling? Feelings aren't duties. A sense of duty is not a duty. For a duty to exist, the conditions for that duty must exist. To know one has a duty, they must be aware of those conditions.

It also points to rhetoric weaponised to persuade without due balance of duty to truth.

That's how you interpret it because of your commitment to your epistemology and your sense of duty. As I've said many times, I'm not trying to persuade anyone about anything - but, you apparently cannot accept that. Instead, you are apparently entirely comfortable telling me why I say and do the things I do even against my own objections and corrections. It's also apparent to me that you don't consider your ontology/epistemology as objectively real and valid for everyone, and that they are operating from it whether they know it or not, whether they agree to it or not. That is evidenced by the way you keep insisting that what I say and how I say it necessarily implies recognition of duty to truth. Well, it would mean that if I was operating under your particular ontology and epistemology - but I am not. That's a concept you don't seem to be able to interact with, apparently because (and you've attempted to make this case) you think your views represent reality, and can be gleaned from reality, prior to having any ontological commitments whatsoever. Watch this point unfold in your comment that follows:

Further to which, in simple prudence we are forced ...

"Simple prudence?" YOu mean, prudence as constructed within your particular ontology/epistemology. And, who is "we?" Why don't you just use "I"? Are you speaking for others? Are you THAT comfortable with mind-reading?

... to view your continued argumentation as not serving truth through responsible right reason and warrant,

Do you mean "responsible right reason and warrant" as it exists under your particular ontology and epistemology? Of course what I argue does not serve your particular concept of those things. If I agreed with your ontology and epistemology, we wouldn't have debated any of the things we've debated over the past year or so. But, that's the tell-tale evidence for the point I was making above; you don't consider your ontology and epistemology and all the entailments thereof theoretical; you consider them to be reality. Look at what you just said - that because I don't feel I have a duty to truth, that means my arguments are rhetorical attempts to persuade people. Logical arguments stand or fall on their own merits, KF. Even if was insane or evil, that would be 100% irrelevant to assessing the validity of the argument. Pointing at me and saying I'm a flawed person is just avoiding the argument. Argument: The necessary conditions for any actual duty to exist are (1) an authority that holds us responsible for the fulfillment of the duty, and (2) consequences for doing/not doing our duty. Therefore, an actual duty cannot be identified as such unless those two conditions are present. Furthermore, an actual duty cannot be know to exist by any individual unless they are aware of the existence of those two conditions. Individuals cannot be appealing to or implying any actual duty they do not know exists (by being aware of those actual conditions.) Yet, to you that argument must be "rhetoric" because I don't know I have a "duty" to truth - a duty I cannot know exists because you refuse to even identify the conditions necessary for me to know I have such a duty? A sense of duty is not an actual duty KF. That's why they call it a "sense" of duty. But, go ahead, keep addressing my supposed flaws to avoid the logic of the arguments I make. What's next? Pounding on the table? Throwing your shoe at me?

... but as pushing what you want others to adhere to for reasons irrelevant to truth, or perhaps reflecting your particular outlook.

I don't care what others adhere to. I'm not trying to persuade anyone into anything - I don't even think that's a remote possibility. But, of course, I can't possibly have any other reason or motivation than what your view projects on me, because you know the real reality and the real rules and the real truth behind what everyone else does or even thinks. William J Murray

origenes, my wants count for nil. I have shown, per undeniable certainty that the fact of self-aware consciousness is self-evident. This is as opposed to the possibility of errors in specific perceptions, ideas etc (say a drunk seeing flying pink elephants). The fact of self awareness is warranted to utter certainty for the one with that experience and such warrant can be reduced to intelligible terms and discussed with others as is happening in this comment. This is what moves it into the onward category, objective truth. Something a seven year old can grasp: I doubt my self-awareness, but WHO is doubting? Ans, me. And that is so even if I am simultaneously contemplating pink flying elephants due to too much of the hot pure white crystal clear 63% alc by vol stuff from uncle Johnny Wray and his Nephew. KF kairosfocus

Warranting an opinion that a painting is beautiful, is totally different procedures from warranting a fact that there is a camel out the back. I'm going to brush all aside that is not an accurate reflection of the rules used in common discourse with subjective statements, and objective statements. And what a load of rubbish it is. Look at Origenes asserting that "I exist" is the most subjective statement ever. Pure fantasizing, without consideration for the logic used with subjective statements in common discourse. How can someone be so arrogant to just assert things without investigation? mohammadnursyamsu

Kairosfocus, You want the statement “I exist” to be an ‘objective truth’. “I exist” constitutes a claim about the “I” — consciousness/ conscious self-awareness/ the mind. The “I” is famously not externally accessible/ available to others; only the subject itself has access. IOWs one’s conscious self-awareness is a companionless experience. To repurpose your own expression, the “I” is not part of ‘the world of the direct senses.’ It does however fit in nicely with the dictionary definition of subjectivity that you offered in @115: “Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.” Yet you want “I exist” to be an ‘objective truth’. In @278 Jerry cites the Merriam Webster dictionary:

objective – based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

So, ‘objective’ refers to what exists “outside of mind”. Newsflash: the “I” does not exist outside of mind. You have offered the following definition of objectivity:

Objectivity (...) has to do with warranted claims that are accessible to — accountable before — others, not just perceptions and tastes or personal views of a subject.

The “I”, one’s consciousness, is not accessible to others. And the perception, personal view of the subject is all that is involved. You have also offered this definition:

Objective adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions.

The “I” is in no way ‘existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions.’ Yet you want “I exist" to be an ‘objective truth.’

Kairosfocus: Objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”) (…)

The “I” is not externally accessible, it is not available to the direct senses of others. The “I” is not in principle available to “anyone.” Yet you want “I exist” to be an ‘objective truth.’ Origenes

MNY, our experiences, perceptions, imaginations etc MAY be warranted but sometimes they are not. That is a commonplace, you have no right to ignore it or brush it aside. Our inner experience therefore is not equivalent to knowledge so we have to address warrant. Which, is generally something that can in key parts be expressed intelligibly and communicated. Yes, our awareness is knowledge that we have experiences of perception etc but that does not confer warrant that the content of such is reliable or credibly accurate to reality. That this is seemingly such a struggle when it is readily accessible to 7 year olds, says something about the ideologies and crooked yardsticks afoot in our day. KF kairosfocus

Some here have fantasized that subjectivity and objectivity is about internal, and externally accessible knowledge. A complete and utter fantasy that they bloviated from their never ending know it all arrogance. Certainly the things inside a closed cupboard are not magically subjective for not being accessible from the outside. Similarly inside a brain, or mind, there does not appear to be any logical relation between something being inside, or outside, and it being subjective or objective. That just appears to be a totally arbitrary fantasy. Obviously inside and outside are used metaphorically, but then what are they a metaphore of? If one would investigate the logic used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse, then ....... one would find the answer as to how subjectivity and objectivity functions. One can do that, or one can make up arbitrary fantasies. mohammadnursyamsu

D1, the issue is the meaning of death as dis-integration of the composite, separation and chaotic consequences. Punishment, too, requires some drawing out, as there are overtones of unjust disproportion and ill-judged rage that are being rhetorically exploited. Hence, my reluctant discussion in 488 on the significance of the rational, self-moved significantly free and responsible soul. Thence, nature of a willfully warped soul as evil, thus perverse and chaotic. Thence, as soul is unified inherently, it cannot de-compose, only deteriorate. Onward, containment and resulting, bolted from the inside, mismanaged gehenna. Rom 2 makes for sobering reading, especially when we observe the access/responsiveness to light, path of life principle. likewise, the one-self as one's own judge by standards demanded of others principle. KF kairosfocus

I'm not an expert on these things, but I would think that a face-value interpretation of the Bible is that death, not suffering, is the punishment for sin. I'm not claiming that resolves everything, but it might be worth considering. Romans 6:12 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (no reference to torment) John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (reward is eternal life, not avoidance of torment) 2 Thess 1:9 - They will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might (penalty is eternal destruction, not torment) Phil 3:19, 20 - Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things. (destruction, not torment) Still not a feel-good ending, but better that eternal torment. davidl1

PPS: Let us go to Rom 13:

Rom 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Notice, Moshe as he draws out the principles of the decalogue, even pointing to duties of property owners towards the poor, duties to the impaired and to duty of justice in court, and freedom to reason frankly but fairly with neighbour:

Lev 19: 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life1 of your neighbor: I am the LORD. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Compare, Cicero -- prototype man without the Bible -- in On the Republic:

, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC

Fast forward 1800 years to Locke citing Hooker:

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

This pattern of thought has been pivotal for civilisation, and speaks to us today in our voyage of folly. kairosfocus

WJM, again, with all due respects, it is clear that your root problem is as I quoted at 392, >>I don’t recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don’t know of any such duty.>> Such, reveals a breakdown of sensitivity, and requires rehabilitation. It also points to rhetoric weaponised to persuade without due balance of duty to truth. Further to which, in simple prudence we are forced to view your continued argumentation as not serving truth through responsible right reason and warrant, but as pushing what you want others to adhere to for reasons irrelevant to truth, or perhaps reflecting your particular outlook. Such undermines the basis for good faith discussion. This comes through when there is obvious contempt for the Christian view of God and a linked rhetorical push of attempted discrediting. UD is not the proper venue for such exchanges, and there are other fora with those of relevant expertise who have engaged and will engage such topics under the rubric Christian apologetics. If somewhere, you seek serious answers, I suggest you repair there. KF PS: On the nature of the soul and its fate. I think we need to look a bit at logic of being, tied to rational responsible freedom. We know that computational substrates made up from organisation of prior independently existing parts are inherently GIGO-limited, non rational programmed dynamic-stochastic entities. They are not free, cannot be rational and responsible. If the human soul (including mind and conscience) is reduced to such a substrate, it becomes only an illusion of freedom, responsibility and rationality. Which self-refers and destroys reasoned discussion, ending in absurdity. Instead, we start from the premise, rational, responsible, conversational, free. Such then points to: non-composite, not a computational substrate made up from prior independently existing parts. An inherently unified, non composite whole. Which then raises a question: we know that computational substrates can be destroyed by removal or breakdown of parts, leading to breakdown of synergy. But, what can destroy a unified, non composite -- so, inherently non-material -- rational responsible entity? The answer comes back, such may deteriorate in function through warping from proper end leading to frustration or privation from true end, but that is very different from a composite entity suffering destruction by disintegration or decomposition. We then come to recognition of contingent souls -- we are conceived by parents and so, caused beings -- that are self-moved, rational, responsible, free, able to interact with bodies, but as souls, immortal. For, death is about disintegration and decomposition. The seemingly odd notion, immortal soul, has a point. So, the further point is, the soul may advance to its true end or may be twisted aside into frustration and privation of that end but is not subject to the sort of breakdown that disintegrates and destroys a computer or the like computational substrate. This also points to the difference between brains as computational substrates subject to disintegration and decay and the mind. Mind being a faculty of soul, not a separable component. The sobering issue of eternal fate therefore arises. Fulfillment of proper end and redemptive, healing driven restoration to such are the relatively easy part. But what of the willfully perverted, warped away from due ends? The answer seems to be containment and confinement so that damage is not unduly extended to pervade all things. Where, too, the doors of hell so to speak are locked from the inside, and the horrors of a mismanaged gehenna make sense as the ultimately crooked cannot work together for the common good. (A lesson not irrelevant to the current breakdowns of our civilisation; heading for a foretaste of gehenna.) Justice respects the choice made and defends the civil peace and wider good by confinement. Willful, collective warping creates a mismanaged toxic gehenna. Where, the perverse choice made is in defiance of sound conscience, it is anything but innocent ignorance at work. It is a failing of the soul test of life. The gift of responsible rational freedom opens up an order of good, good from virtue, starting with love, truth and goodness. But that freedom can be perverted into evils instead, wreaking havoc. We have a duty instead to heed sound conscience and go towards the right. Which, now in specifically Christian context, is informed by:

Rom 2: 1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? [--> notice, we here judge ourselves by the expectations of justice, virtue and goodness we demand of others] 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life [--> notice, judgement by response to light one has, and thus by path towards the light, however stumbling]; 8 but for those who are self-seeking1 and do not obey the truth [--> danger of loss of sensitivity to duty to truth], but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury [--> response to willful, self-seeking failure of the soul test of life]. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil [--> perversion, frustration, privation of the good out of its proper end, leading to chaos], the Jew first and also the Greek [--> man with and without covenantal, scriptural prophetic, revelatory tradition], 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good [--> i.e. walks in the light and truth one has reasonable access to, towards due end, however imperfectly . . . there is no excuse for cynical hyperskeptical disregard for the light one has or for stifling the voice of conscience], the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. [--> divine fairness] 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts [--> core, creation order, built in law of our rational, responsible nature, most easily seen through the duty to neighbour principle cf 13:8 - 10], while their conscience also bears witness [--> sound conscience as a witness], and their conflicting thoughts [--> inner and community level debate under force of the voice of the light one has] accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [ESV]

Strange reflections but sobering and inviting us to the path of the truth, the good, the right. kairosfocus

Querius @461 asks:

Then consider the different paths that God might have taken. For example, how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will?

Why ask me a question like that when you've already established that whatever changes I would propose that would appear to be a better alternative (such as my non-sentient bad-guy NPC idea that would eliminate eternal suffering) would be me foolishly imagining I could design a better system because I don't know all that your hypothetical God knows? The thing about that view is that it is a true "God of the gaps" argument; any gaps in the logic or reasoning are explained by God knowing stuff we do not that would explain why he did things the way he did, even if there are what appear to be obvious, rational alternatives that seem to be a much, much better system. William J Murray

Ram @431:

Does he enjoy watching them suffer? Is he unable to snuff them out? Or what?

What's just as bad is that the Christians here apparently, once they are in heaven, are going to be A-OK with all those people suffering for eternity and it's not going to dampen their joy and happiness one bit. When we get to the Christian Heaven, do we just forget about all the people suffering for eternity? Out of sight, out of mind? Countless people suffering eternal torment, and we're dancing with joy in the light of the Lord? William J Murray

Querius @465 said:

No, you’re not trying to explain the rules of football, but rather your rules of football.

You say that as if it makes a difference to the point I was making. Do you have any idea what point I was making?

My point is relevant using a kal v’chomer argument. If my criticism was applicable to the arrogance of someone claiming to be able to design a better substitute for the Krebs Cycle, how much more applicable is it to someone claiming they could have done a better job at creating and managing entities with free will than the God who created the universe?

This is an example is what I mean by Christians here not passing the Turing test. My question was specifically about making one specific change to the world God already created that would make zero noticeable difference during the lives here of anyone who makes it into heaven, but ensures no conscious, sentient being suffers eternal torment. William J Murray

Two statements by Kairosfocus: (1.) Objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”) and is so warranted as credible (…) (2.) I exist, a perception of consciousness, is (…) objectively true. These statements cannot both be true.Only the subject has access to its conscious self-awareness. .

Yes they are both true. Conscious self-awareness is a common state of human being that manifest itself externally with face expressions/words/letters/books/actions. This is the way we ALL know that "conscious self-awareness" ("I exist") is objectively true BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE THAT REAL EXPERIENCE,and we confirm to each other EXTERNALLY that indeed is real . Same mechanism happens with the concepts of truth/moral law that we have internally as intuitions or clear thoughts and are learned/reinforced /confirmed externally . PS: :) We don't need to see the soul or conscious self-awareness to prove the existence of the moral law/objective truths,etc. Lieutenant Commander Data

PPS: Recall, on { } per von Neumann: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1, as 0 is an entity subject to collection {0,1} --> 2 . . . {0,1,2 . . . } --> omega, first transfinite ordinal Here we start with a unique abstractum, {}, accessible from all possible worlds by individuals capable of reflection and symbolic communication. From it we can construct N, including its implicitly transfinite no accessible final finite n in N property and the successor transfinites that open the door to transfinite hyperintegers. From N we can construct Z, Q,, R, C and then R* etc, with many properties, structures and results such as axiomatised systems, theorems etc. Where everything involved is an internal object of reflection, an experience, perception and conception of the agent as subject and is therefore subjective. However, as there is publicly accessible symbolisation, discussion on warrant, reason etc, we can compose a body of objective knowledge and hold the entities starting with the null set as objective. Objectivity, then, by direct and massively evident counter example, is not the logical antithesis of the subjective. It instead addresses our error proneness and builds on our perceptions, experiences, ideas etc, a structure of warrant, leading to objective in common knowledge. This then extends to other domains of thought, from seven year olds reflecting together to learned societies that have not yet surrendered to the anti-rationality that is rampant in our day. Including, on the actuality of objective truth and bodies of knowledge regarding right conduct, duty, virtue, honour etc. kairosfocus

Origines, you are now setting up and knocking over a strawman in the face of a specific explanation that clarifies. Patently, I am not speaking of direct conscious access to the inner thoughts, perceptions and experiences of the other. With rare exceptions such as some conjoined twins, that does not happen. However, we are communicative creatures and can and do share our thoughts and ideas, so that two or more can access the same intangible or abstract idea or experience. I used the example of mathematical entities such as { } --> 0 . . . which is a unique distinct set, the null set, of which there is but one in all of reality [which we may refer to any number of times] . . . as a case in point as that whole discipline at core is about intangible abstract entities that are part of a discipline that is clearly objective, in fact is a major part of several professions. We can have objective knowledge of the intangible and abstract, through communicative sharing of what we individually experience or reflect on or perceive etc. I also specifically spoke to self-awareness, distinguishing the conscious experience from reflection on it including doubting, which on such reflection pivots on said consciousness. We each can experience consciousness and we can use language and logic to internally arrive at a self-evident -- as undeniable -- conclusion. As we are similar creatures and are communicative, there is no insuperable barrier to sharing the ideas and inferring to moral certainty that what we experience and reflect on is shared with others. Such constitutes publicly accessible reasoning that is cogent and conclusive. The same may readily be extended to conscience and reflections on right conduct, virtue, duty etc, leading to shared moral reasoning, mutual recognition of the warrant for first duties etc. And more, much of which is already above. KF PS: I probably should include some types of prophetic empathy accessible as a spiritual gift. That's real but rare enough. kairosfocus

Lieutenant Commander Data @479

Origenes: For clarity, conscious self-awareness is NOT externally accessible & available to anyone.

Yes it is, you just made it available for us. These are your words .Right? Therefore Kairosfocus is right.

These are indeed my words. However, I hate it to break it to you, but my words and my conscious self-awareness are not identical things. Origenes

Two statements by Kairosfocus:

(1.) Objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”) and is so warranted as credible (…)

(2.) I exist, a perception of consciousness, is (...) objectively true.

These statements cannot both be true. Only the subject has access to its conscious self-awareness. Conscious self-awareness is therefore not “externally accessible”. My conscious self-awareness is not available to anyone but me. But Kairosfocus wants both statements to be true nonetheless:

KF: Likewise, on I exist, we are conscious creatures and each of us accesses therefore consciousness.

Sure, but when you say “I exist” you are referring to your consciousness. No one but you has access to your consciousness .

We recognise the cognitive process of doubt etc and how it turns on said self aware existence.

Are you suggesting that “recognize” is something like “having external access”?

By extension we recognise the consciousness of others and generality of the result.

What is your point? Generalizing something has to with external access and/or availability to anyone? Origenes

Ram Prove it. And you might try answering the questions I raised.

Let's remember your message:

People who believe in this eternal torment idea can’t explain why

I explained why. Then your next message:

Ram Prove it. And you might try answering the questions I raised.

:) I translate what Ram said "No,no I changed my mind first you have to prove existence of the hell to have the right to explain why. " Well...I proved you being a liar .

Origenes For clarity, conscious self-awareness is NOT externally accessible & available to anyone.

Yes it is, you just made it available for us. These are your words .Right? ;) Therefore Kairosfocus is right : OBJECTIVE TRUTH is about the degree of truth that is EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE (I.E. IN PRINCIPLE AVAILABLE TO “ANYONE”) and is so warranted as credible (…) Lieutenant Commander Data

Origenes, the warrant process is open so we can inspect. You will recall long since I used mathematical abstracta that are not physically located in any world, e.g. {}, which on von Neumann is foundation of N so numbers. The idea is contemplated by us and we are subjects, but the warrant process is in principle open and accessible to anyone with adequate background. I recall, the mathematical examples were dismissed as if they were irrelevant. That dismissal shows instead a missing of a key point. Likewise, on I exist, we are conscious creatures and each of us accesses therefore consciousness. We recognise the cognitive process of doubt etc and how it turns on said self aware existence. So, we have undeniability and so self evidence, a particularly strong degree of certain warrant. Thus, objective truth regarding a major experience of self-aware agency. By extension we recognise the consciousness of others and generality of the result. And so forth, I cannot but see that there is repeated making of mountains out of molehills here, reflecting that there is an entrenched ideology hostile to what is readily accessible to an average seven year old. That is a measure of just how far out of kilter our civilisation's intellectual culture is. KF kairosfocus

@Seversky The meaning of basic words like fact and opinion, has never evolved. Someone thousands of years ago, in any language, used the exactsame logic as we do now, in stating a personal opinion that something is beautiful, and the exactsame logic in stating a fact, like that there is a camel out back. mohammadnursyamsu

Lieutenant Commander Data

You don’t know what is the meaning of objective /subjective. For example I can tell you that Kairosfocus comments contain ~90% objective ideas while yours contain 100% subjective ideas. Objective doesn’t come from “an object” but from objectivity(truth/unbiased) of the subject (...)

Querius:

Nicely stated!

Commander & Querius read and weep: Kairosfocus:

OBJECTIVE TRUTH is about the degree of truth that is EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE (I.E. IN PRINCIPLE AVAILABLE TO “ANYONE”) and is so warranted as credible (…)

For clarity, conscious self-awareness is NOT externally accessible & available to anyone. Origenes

LCD: This eternal torment is not an idea it’s a reality Prove it. And you might try answering the questions I raised. --Ram ram

Ram People who believe in this eternal torment idea can’t explain why that disposition is necessary to their God. What function does it fulfill? Does he enjoy watching them suffer? Is he unable to snuff them out? Or what?

:) This eternal torment is not an idea it's a reality that explain the fundamental importance of moral law. The moral law given to us is not a joke , our life is not a joke or a PC game that you can restart at will . Our actions and thoughts have REAL consequences. Lieutenant Commander Data

WJM “it doesn’t change the fact that if the actual people made the wrong choice they would suffer that fate” How can one suffer “that fate” since there can be no suffering if the people do not exist? How is it possible for a non existence to experience suffering , fate or anything else for that matter? Vivid vividbleau

--Ram ram

Querius: Do people who understand that they might die of smoking all quit because they know how terrible cancer would be and that it will kill them? Dying of cancer is not the same as eternal torment. Yes, the story I related about the man with cancer is true. I don't know how reliable your testimony is, or the degree to which you probed his mind, so the anecdote is useless to me as evidence. My conversation with such a person would probably be different than yours. how would a person evaluate whether something were truly the Word of God? Beyond the scope of the thread or my interest here. One can point out the absurdities of a particular theology without getting into diversionary meta discussions. --Ram ram

The meanings of words are not fixed for posterity and recorded in some Divine English Dictionary, they are living things which are invented or evolved within human cultures and drift and change over time, sometimes moving far beyond their original meanings. One change that caught my eye recently was the the usage of "flaunting the law." As I grew up, the meaning of "flaunt" was something like to display ostentatiously. On the other hand, if someone was displaying an open disregard for the law I would have said that person was "flouting the law". When I checked, however, it seems that both usages are now acceptable. I'm not sure if that has always been the case or it has changed because some people began using "flaunt" by mistake and it then became acceptable. The other usage that bugs me, although it shouldn't really, is when people write "could of" instead of "could've" which is the proper contraction for "could have". Seversky

Querius: Then, regarding your assertion that my analogy is absurd and my brand of Christianity is absurd, I’d point out that generally, when someone resorts to abuse, it’s an indication that they’ve lost the argument, having no cogent rebuttal. Abuse? Words mean things, and sometimes we can tell the mindset of the person using them. You proffered an absurd analogy, and I would have to assume that you think it has some rational force. From my view it appears you made a mistake not realizing your analogy actually supports WJM's point. That is not any sort of broad "attack" on you. We all make mistakes. "You're an idiot and everything you say is stupid" is an example of an actual personal attack. Sidebar pro tip: analogies are useful to explain concepts but they are not very persuasive as rhetorical devices. --Ram ram

Ram @419, Yes, sometimes a person has a misconception or some false ideas. More often, there's a moral issue that doesn't involve a lack of knowledge, but simply rationalization and blaming the Creator for making them. Yes, the story I related about the man with cancer is true. I think he was a smoker. Do people who understand that they might die of smoking all quit because they know how terrible cancer would be and that it will kill them?

Black holes aren’t bottomless pits. Their popular name is a bit of a misnomer.

According to our current understanding, a black hole is a massive deformation of spacetime and the comparison of a gravitational energy well that approaches a point mass to a bottomless pit isn’t that far off. Particles falling into a black hole accelerate to the speed of light, and from an observer’s perspective, time would slow down to become eternal while the particle would be absorbed in a tiny fraction of a second. There’s some interesting discussion here, including an assertion that the singularity is less of a place in space than a moment in time. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-long-does-it-take-to-fall-into-a-black-hole.1000235/

Querius: . . . the revealed Word of God is the most reliable source.

Only if one is convinced “it” is indeed revealed Word of God. (There are several configurations of “the Bible.” The Jews have theirs, Catholics have theirs, Protestants have theirs, etc. Parts of the Bibles could be true, and other parts not true. Others think the Quran or Book of Mormon is the most reliable source. Etc.)

Yes. And if so, the revealed Word of God exists independently of various beliefs about it. So, how would a person evaluate whether something were truly the Word of God? Can you think of any criteria? -Q Querius

@Querius, yes in scripture, which is the word of God, there is also a distinction between subjective and objective. Scripture uses the same logic as common discourse does, obviously. Who do you think you are that you can just fantasize how subjectivity and objectivity works, and disregard the rules used with subjective statement and objective statements, in scripture, as well as in common discourse? This is all sooooo disgusting, to see one after another just fantasize definitions for subjectivity and objectivity. What a lot of arrogance to do that. mohammadnursyamsu

Lieutenant Commander Data @464, Nicely stated! Imagining God's statements, I don't think one can apply objective and subjective as categories since all of God's statements are true. Some of our statements will certainly be subjective based on our limits of knowledge, but subjectivity vanishes in the light of God's truth. Even a child's statement such as, "I like ice cream," can be problematic if the child making the statement thinks the yogurt they're eating is ice cream (a friend of ours always called the yogurt she gave to her young son, "ice cream"). Nice trick. -Q Querius

William J Murray @427,

Querius @418: Translation: You disagree with me, so you must be mentally deficient.

Nope. Not even close. When KF insists that I mean something other than what I directly tell him I mean literally dozens of times when it comes to my mental reality theory. He doesn’t get to disagree with me about what my mental reality theory actually states; he doesn’t get to insist that the consequences of MRT are what his reality paradigm dictates bases on the premises, ontology and epistemology of his perspective on reality. It is exactly like this: I’m trying to explain the game of football, and KF keeps telling me that running with the football without dribbling it is a violation of the rules of his game – basketball.

No, you’re not trying to explain the rules of football, but rather your rules of football.

Origenes’ is a type of argument from ignorance as might be restated as, “I can easily design plants and animals far better than the ones in the world today.

I assume you meant me and not Origenes. You seem to be misunderstanding my argument and focusing on something that allows you to dismiss it rather than engage the point logically. LIke KF using an irrelevant point – whether or not I’m “credible” – to avoid engaging the logic of the questions I pose. Let me restate it: GIVEN the Christian God and this creation, why imbue all the hell-bound people with actual self-aware consciousness that would result in them suffering eternal torment? Can God not just use NPC automatons to fulfill those roles so that no actual self-aware conscious entity suffers eternal torment? It doesn’t remove free will from any actual person; it doesn’t change the fact that if the actual people made the wrong choice they would suffer that fate. The only thing it logically, necessarily changes is that when the outcome comes to pass, nobody is experiencing eternal suffering.

Yes, I misattributed your reference to Burr--sorry. My point is relevant using a kal v'chomer argument. If my criticism was applicable to the arrogance of someone claiming to be able to design a better substitute for the Krebs Cycle, how much more applicable is it to someone claiming they could have done a better job at creating and managing entities with free will than the God who created the universe?

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. -Isaiah 55:8-11 (NIV)

-Q Querius

Origenes KF claims that the term objectivity has only to do with the amount of warrant; irrespective where it comes from. He goes on to claim that the most subjective statement ever *”I exist”* is an “objective truth.”

Origenes are you Mohammadnursyamsu or/and WJM ?because you copy some of the insane ideas from these accounts. You don't know what is the meaning of objective /subjective. For example I can tell you that Kairosfocus comments contain ~90% objective ideas while yours contain 100% subjective ideas. Objective doesn't come from "an object" but from objectivity(truth/unbiased) of the subject while subjective come from the subjectivity(personal opinion/biased judgement) of the subject. Only a subject(as individual mind ) can be objective/subjective.

claim that the most subjective statement ever *”I exist”* is an “objective truth.”

"I exist" is not an subjective statement (opinion/preference/biased view) is an objective(true) statement . Lieutenant Commander Data

460 William J Murray @460,

Querius said: Do you mean their duty to God or do you mean their duty to a human institution? I meant what I said.

Yes, I assume you did. And I also meant what I said. -Q Querius

Ram @420,

Querius: William J Murray and Origenes are firemen on a ladder… You’re making WJM’s point. Your analogy is indeed absurd, which is exactly WJM’s point: your brand of Christian theology is absurd. You analogy shows exactly why it’s absurd, and that you acknowledge that it is.

No, I’m not. Originally, I was going to put them in the apartment arguing with their rescuers, but I thought it might be interesting to have them think how frustrating it would be for them as the firemen. Then, regarding your assertion that my analogy is absurd and my brand of Christianity is absurd, I’d point out that generally, when someone resorts to abuse, it’s an indication that they’ve lost the argument, having no cogent rebuttal. -Q Querius

William J Murray @413,

I was just out having a smoke on my porch and I had an epiphany about this.

You seem to start your thoughts presupposing the non-existence of God and the human synthesis of some sort of ultimate being. Perhaps the next time you go out for a smoke, start with the presumption of that the Judeo-Christian God really does exist: - Sentient, massive intelligence, highly creative, not a complete idiot with a white beard - Perfectly righteous, just, and loving, not evil - Desiring human and other beings with free will, limited intelligence and knowledge, and who are not stimulus-response robots Then consider the different paths that God might have taken. For example, how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will? -Q Querius

Querius said:

Do you mean their duty to God or do you mean their duty to a human institution?

I meant what I said. William J Murray

435 Mohammadnursyamsu @435,

@KF, ORIGENES, WJM, QUERIUS, BA77 It is not allowed to just imagine the definition of subjectivity and objectivity.

So does God also distinguish between objective truth and subjective truth for Himself? Can you support your answer? -Q Querius

William J Murray @401,

Would you still do your duty to God if the consequence of doing your duty means you will spend eternity being tormented in hell, and those who do not do their duty get eternal life in heaven?

Do you mean their duty to God or do you mean their duty to a human institution? That makes all the difference! - If I’m in the military and my commanding officer orders me to commit a crime, it might be my “duty” to follow orders, but I cannot be obligated to violate my conscience or my faith.

When a pair of mules blocked a bridge during the Sicily offensive in 1943, halting his armoured convoy and making it vulnerable to enemy fire, Patton personally shot the animals and ordered them pushed off the bridge. Two of Patton’s men were tried in connection with the killing of dozens of Italian and German prisoners of war in southern Sicily on July 14, 1943, which came to be known as the Biscari Massacre. Both claimed that they were following orders not to take prisoners that Patton himself had set forth in a fiery speech to their division a month earlier. Patton denied responsibility, and he was exonerated of any crime. - Britannica

- For God to make it the duty of someone to do something that He would later punish them for is not possible. The scriptures tell us that there are things that it’s impossible for God to do, such as lie. Incidentally, the Apostle Paul stated the following:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race . . . – Romans 9:3 (NIV)

-Q Querius

Origenes @385,

So, a murderer doesn’t do jail time at all, but in his place an innocent person spends his life in jail. And that satisfies justice in your book?

I need to clarify something about my subsequent “yes” answer @397. In context, I assumed we were still talking about substitutionary atonement. However, without voluntary consent, the innocent person you mentioned is indeed subject to a miscarriage of justice as is the guilty party. Furthermore, I should also specify that substitutionary atonement requires repentance for it to be effective. Also note that in our current laws, there are many examples of substitutionary justice. For example, lawsuits involving injury or even wrongful death usually involve monetary compensation. For example, if someone slips and breaks their leg on your property, you will be liable for damages, perhaps even punitive damages. But the law doesn’t require that your leg be likewise broken, right? -Q Querius

In post @434 I have explained why Kairosfocus does not want 'objective truth' to mean knowledge which depends on what is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”), as opposed to knowledge about things only accessible to the subject. KF claims that the term objectivity has only to do with the amount of warrant; irrespective where it comes from. He goes on to claim that the most subjective statement ever *"I exist"* is an "objective truth."

KF @436: ... it is warrant (which comes in many ways and degrees) that confers a corresponding degree of objectivity (...)

The reader might like to know that what Kairosfocus is saying in this thread contrasts sharply with the things he usually says:

Kairosfocus: OBJECTIVE TRUTH is about the degree of truth that is EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE (I.E. IN PRINCIPLE AVAILABLE TO "ANYONE") and is so warranted as credible (...)

- source - Origenes

Kairosfocus PS: beauty is intelligible i/l/o principles of aesthetics, which still work despite the relativist, subjectivist, emotivist fashions of the day and imposition of cynically ugly architecture and pieces on us by those with power.

:) Also in the light of principles of eastethics(and other) the most beautiful thing in the world is the truth. The truth likes to live and shine in humble people . I don't know if you noticed but your respectful talk with infatuated people have a strange effect on them : they become MORE infatuated. ;) It's like you hit a hive with a stick. Sandy

When KF says that my credibility matters in these arguments, it makes me question whether or not KF actually understands the logic of anything he posts here. I'm starting to think that everything he argues here is a form of cut-and paste or from memory of arguments other people made that he hitched his credibility wagon to. IOW, he seems to see certain key words, then rummage through his data-base using those key words like a search algorithm, and post here what his sources say in reference to those key words whether it has anything to do with what was said or not, whether it actually answers the concept of the question or not. I mean, IMO he keeps blatantly failing the Turing test. William J Murray

KF said:

As for objectivity of key moral truths, as they are demonstrably inescapable in the rhetorical force of arguments, even those of objectors, they are inescapably and self-evidently true as first principles that govern our rational conduct. Indeed, Cicero’s highest reason. If these are disregarded as poorly warranted, including BTW duties to right reason, truth, justice etc, then rationality collapses and with it responsibility, soundness and prudence. Which may have a lot to do with the state of our civilisation.

Inescapable behaviors cannot be logically connected to duties, because one is the antithesis of the other. A duty MUST always be an optional behavior. You cannot recognize a duty via an inescapable behavior. Duties can only be shown in light of their necessary conditions: authority and consequence. That is why no duty can be self-evident OR linked to inescapable behavior. William J Murray

KF said:

WJM, you have already undermined your credibility as noted.

Good. I don't want anyone to add any weight to anything I have to say based on any sense that I have any credibility whatsoever. I'd like anyone interacting with me to base their conversation solely upon the logic of my arguments. William J Murray

MNY, the point of ought is to challenge the is. KF kairosfocus

WJM, you have already undermined your credibility as noted. As for objectivity of key moral truths, as they are demonstrably inescapable in the rhetorical force of arguments, even those of objectors, they are inescapably and self-evidently true as first principles that govern our rational conduct. Indeed, Cicero's highest reason. If these are disregarded as poorly warranted, including BTW duties to right reason, truth, justice etc, then rationality collapses and with it responsibility, soundness and prudence. Which may have a lot to do with the state of our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

@KF You don't obey the rules, nobody is above the rules. And this discussion is going nowhere, because of everyone disobeying the rules. mohammadnursyamsu

Origines, the moral principles in question are observably inescapable and govern reasoned thought and argument. So, inescapably and self evidently true first principles that are in key part constitutive of our nature. As self-creation is incoherent, that points to the source of our nature, but they are built in, they are how rational responsible freedom is governed, by principles we freely choose to follow rather than mechanistic, dynamic-stochastic forces such as govern those organised refined rocks we call computers. Which, have no freedom and are non-rational. So, voice of conscience speaks and can be refined to be ever sounder. It calls us to truth, right reason, neighbour, fairness, justice, prudence, including warrant. We can reject but that does not change the force of oughtness. Which points to the IS-OUGHT gap and the only place it can be bridged, the root of reality. Thus, such creatures as we are are best explained as coming from the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. KF kairosfocus

Origenes @446 said:

At least to me it is quite clear that objective morality did not get its name because it exceptionaly well warranted.

I'm going to disagree here from the perspective of having read countless posts by KF in exchanges where I was trying to understand his perspective. KF's concept of morality is well-warranted under KF's system of warrant. That he also holds that it comes from an external source is a separate issue, IMO. William J Murray

WJM @441 Yes things seem to fit rather nicely. However when KF speaks of 'objective morality', it is clear that he speaks of a morality that does not come from the subject. Here objective morality is called "objective" because it comes to us from the outside — IOWs from the world of objects. At least to me it is quite clear that objective morality did not get its name because it exceptionaly well warranted. Origenes

The degree to which our sense of responsible, reliable access to reality has been systematically undermined is appalling and a terrible sign for our civilisation. Accordingly, F H Bradley:

We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]

kairosfocus

WJM, warrant is towards reduced likelihood of error, a generally known challenge for subjectivity. There are relatively few things that can be warranted to utter certainty, and we can see that general discourse accepts things such as science ah having knowledge. So, reasonable warrant confers weak sense knowledge, which in some cases can go to an absolutely strong sense. The warrant is the pivot. KF kairosfocus

Origenes, your repeated denial does not change the fact. Enough has already been said to show that as our subjectivity is error prone we need adequate warrant to guide what we rely on, what is warranted towards credible reliable truth is objective. That warrant coming in many ways and degrees. For example the historical existence of Ghandi, Napoleon, Cicero, Jesus of Nazareth and Plato are well warranted and objective. KF kairosfocus

MNY, logic is the substance and study of sound reasoning, pivoting on the triple self-evident first principles, law of identity, non contradiction and excluded middle. As applied to knowledge it addresses the right functioning of faculties that warrant. As applied to Mathematics it is the core of the study of structure and quantity. As applied to right conduct, duty virtue etc it is that which allows us to discern first truths, the first duties and extend from such to particular contexts. We cannot avoid LOI and communicate coherently, e.g. using language, which pivots on distinct identity of symbols elaborated into linguistic structures. As such logic appears in all common discourse and the issue is how validly, soundly, cogently and correctly we reason. As to on the subjective, all that pases through our self aware agency passes through our being subjects, who are error prone. Logic is a key part of the faculties of warrant that provide objectivity, via successful warrant. Objectivity is therefore not the opposite of subjectivity, but speaks to what has successful warrant leading to credible but not necessarily perfect or incorrigible confidence in access to truth or at any rate reliability. This has already been shown, but it seems it cuts across your preferences. I note, in simple terms an average seven year old understands this. KF kairosfocus

Origenes said:

Maybe it means ‘credibility’.

That makes sense. KF has an epistemology of warrant; the more warranted something is via that epistemology, the more likely a statement can be regarded as "true" and/or "objective;" the less warrant, the more likely it is "error" and/or "subjective." How well-warranted a statement is = the statement's credibility. William J Murray

Kairosfocus @436

... it is warrant (which comes in many ways and degrees) that confers a corresponding degree of objectivity (...)

Still no clear definition of 'objectivity'. According to Kairosfocus, the term objectivity has not to do with objects, unlike the term subjectivity that certainly has to do with subjects. It is something that emerges in degrees corresponding with the amount of warrant — any type of warrant. Maybe it means 'credibility'. Origenes

@KF Your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are not an answer to the question, what is the underlying logic used in common discourse with subjective statements, and objective statements? Therefore it is arbitrary imagination for being outside of that rule. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY, I have not arbitrarily imagined and imposed a definition out of thin air, I have given due context and rationale. KF PS: beauty is intelligible i/l/o principles of aesthetics, which still work despite the relativist, subjectivist, emotivist fashions of the day and imposition of cynically ugly architecture and pieces on us by those with power. See https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/culture/logic-first-principles-14-are-beauty-truth-knowledge-goodness-and-justice-merely-matters-of-subjective-opinions-preliminary-thoughts/ kairosfocus

WJM, the conditions for first duties have to do with our being rational, responsible, significantly free creatures so neighbours, in a common world; your own objections etc depend on these to have any rhetorical leverage. Additionally, we owe duties among those as duties to ourselves given our dignity as creatures of that order. Beyond, lie duties to our creator, which are again for our own good. KF kairosfocus

Origenes, it is warrant (which comes in many ways and degrees) that confers a corresponding degree of objectivity to what we may perceive, sense, conceive, or otherwise process through our self aware conscious and even unconscious agency. Reality, is whatever states of affairs actually obtain and objectivity allows us to have a degree of confidence in reliable access to it. If one is crossing a street and a rushing bus blares the horn one jumps out of the way. KF kairosfocus

@KF, ORIGENES, WJM, QUERIUS, BA77 It is not allowed to just imagine the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. The definition of subjectivity and objectivity can be discovered by investigating what the underlying logic is in subjective statements, like to say a painting is beautiful, and objective statements, like to say there is a camel out the back. It must be that way because if there is a difference between the intellectual meaning of words, and the meaning as it is in common discourse, then that difference leaves people open to legitemate accusations of duplicity. They imply one thing is true in the common discourse they themselves use, and they say another thing is true intellectually, which means they are contradicting themselves, and therefore can be accused of lying. mohammadnursyamsu

Thank you WJM, As I understand it, Kairosfocus wants to divide statements into two types: 1. Subjective statements 2. Objective truths Subjective statements are only supported by the subject and since subjects are error-prone almost certainly false. Objective truths have support (warrant) from the external world of objects [independent from the subject], and, given that the warrant is ‘successful’, are almost certainly true. Enter the subjective statement “I exist”. Self-awareness has no support whatsoever from the world of objects [independent from the subject], yet it is undeniably true. A true subjective statement doesn’t sit well at all with Kairosfocus’ definitions of subjective and objective. He desperately does not want subjective statements to be true, he only wants objective statements to be true. So what does he do? He tries to mold the meaning of ‘objective’ in such a way that the most subjective statement ever produced in human history *I exist* can be called an ‘objective truth’. Origenes

KF said:

WJM, with all respect, pardon but I must note that your cognition is clearly going to be quite impaired by your admitted loss of sensitivity to truth (and refusal in that light to acknowledge self-evident duty to truth etc).

Duties cannot be self-evident because they are only evident in light of conditions necessary for a duty to exist. I don't know what you mean by "loss of sensitivity to truth," so I don't know if I admitted to that or not.

you continue to argue, on terms that for rhetorical effectiveness pivot on our recognition of our moral government through the Ciceronian first duties.

Nope. This is you attempting to mind-read me and judging my behavior through the lens of your particular ontology & epistemology, which you apparently cannot set aside even for a moment arguendo.

Accordingly, I further suggest that you go back to plumb line, self-evident first truths, as a naturally upright and straight plumb line will correct crooked yardsticks serving as false canons of uprightness, accuracy and straightness.

I have never left any actual self-evident truths behind. In fact, I've repeatedly referred to them to show how your argument fails. Such as: actual duties cannot be self-evident truths, because an actual duty only becomes evident by bringing to light the conditions (authority and consequences) that are necessary to establish a thing as a duty. It is you that have strayed from the plumb-line, KF, by insisting that something which cannot be self-evidently true is self-evidently true. William J Murray

KF @429

Kairosfocus: What is in our cognition, perception etc is in our subjective awareness, what is in addition successfully warranted is objective.

So, I take it you are saying that ‘successfully warranted’ is synonymous to ‘objective’. Thus by ‘objective truth’ you mean ‘successfully warranted truth’. Is that correct? Origenes

WJM: Can God not just use NPC automatons to fulfill those roles so that no actual self-aware conscious entity suffers eternal torment? That's an interesting idea, but the question remains why their God doesn't just snuff out any conscious entities that he is not ultimately satisfied with instead of making them suffer eternal torment. People who believe in this eternal torment idea can't explain why that disposition is necessary to their God. What function does it fulfill? Does he enjoy watching them suffer? Is he unable to snuff them out? Or what? ram

WJM, with all respect, pardon but I must note that your cognition is clearly going to be quite impaired by your admitted loss of sensitivity to truth (and refusal in that light to acknowledge self-evident duty to truth etc). Ironically, and manifesting key incoherence, you continue to argue, on terms that for rhetorical effectiveness pivot on our recognition of our moral government through the Ciceronian first duties. You too sit on the branch. I suggest, that the impairment will undermine your reflections on gospel and gospel ethics themes, as the apostles warned against 2,000 years ago. Indeed, we note their source, in His most famous sermon: "Mt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" I suggest, therefore, that your arguments and suggested conclusions are not as well founded as they may seem to you. Accordingly, I further suggest that you go back to plumb line, self-evident first truths, as a naturally upright and straight plumb line will correct crooked yardsticks serving as false canons of uprightness, accuracy and straightness. Hence, the emphasis on sound-conscience attested first truths regarding the first duties of reason. The law that is built in and governs our responsible, rational freedom. Such will not provide an exhaustive frame for comprehending all of reality but will provide a sound test for our yardsticks. KF kairosfocus

Origenes, au contraire, what objectivity is is quite clear once the issue of our error-proneness and need for successful warrant are on the table. Subjectivity and objectivity are not A and NOT-A, they deal with different aspects of our agency. As our awareness is error prone, we need warrant to have well founded confidence in credible truth and/or reliability. Warrant, as noted [with significant allusion to Plantinga] is the result of being "processed by faculties that are successfully aimed at truth and are working without undue impairment in macro and local environments conducive to their proper function; and of course pass[ing] the test." We commonly say seeing is believing, but there are limitations and illusions etc. Gettier beckons, and Plantinga addressed issues tied to what he raised. What is warranted successfully is objectively the case, with significant reliability, though utter certainty only obtains on relatively few cases; i.e. knowledge in the ordinary sense from day to day is provisional, e.g. Science. What is in our cognition, perception etc is in our subjective awareness, what is in addition successfully warranted is objective. Which we need, given our error-proneness and too often our resistance to correction of errors. KF kairosfocus

It's interesting that the Christians here refuse to address and engage the hard logical questions being posed. BTW, Origenes, excellent and tremendously important point about the absolute, irrefutable subjective nature of "I exist." That just made me laugh in delight. Well done. William J Murray

Querius @418:

Translation: You disagree with me, so you must be mentally deficient.

Nope. Not even close. When KF insists that I mean something other than what I directly tell him I mean literally dozens of times when it comes to my mental reality theory. He doesn't get to disagree with me about what my mental reality theory actually states; he doesn't get to insist that the consequences of MRT are what his reality paradigm dictates bases on the premises, ontology and epistemology of his perspective on reality. It is exactly like this: I'm trying to explain the game of football, and KF keeps telling me that running with the football without dribbling it is a violation of the rules of his game - basketball.

Origenes’ is a type of argument from ignorance as might be restated as, “I can easily design plants and animals far better than the ones in the world today.

I assume you meant me and not Origenes. You seem to be misunderstanding my argument and focusing on something that allows you to dismiss it rather than engage the point logically. LIke KF using an irrelevant point - whether or not I'm "credible" - to avoid engaging the logic of the questions I pose. Let me restate it: GIVEN the Christian God and this creation, why imbue all the hell-bound people with actual self-aware consciousness that would result in them suffering eternal torment? Can God not just use NPC automatons to fulfill those roles so that no actual self-aware conscious entity suffers eternal torment? It doesn't remove free will from any actual person; it doesn't change the fact that if the actual people made the wrong choice they would suffer that fate. The only thing it logically, necessarily changes is that when the outcome comes to pass, nobody is experiencing eternal suffering. William J Murray

Kairosfocus, it remains unclear to me what you mean with the term 'objective'.

Subjectivity is implied in and a part of our agency but warrant and the higher order warrant of the relevant faculty, lack of undue impairment and proper environment, are all involved in grounding the conclusion, objective truth.

Why do you say “objective truth”, rather than “truth”? What does “objective” mean when you say “objective truth”? Does it mean “true truth” or “warranted truth”? Please explain. And when you speak of “objectively warranted”, do you mean “really warranted” or perhaps “warranted warranted”? Origenes

Origenes, the significance of warrant as that which confers tested, credible truth to perceptions, judgements, beliefs etc through right reason, must be appreciated. Likewise, that while anything passing through our self-aware agency by that passes through our subjectivity, not everything in our subjectivity can or does pass responsible tests of warrant. I have repeatedly pointed out the matter of warrant, it is evident that your difficulty is with warrant. Something is warranted when it is processed by faculties that are successfully aimed at truth and are working without undue impairment in macro and local environments conducive to their proper function; and of course passes the test. Subjectivity is implied in and a part of our agency but warrant and the higher order warrant of the relevant faculty, lack of undue impairment and proper environment, are all involved in grounding the conclusion, objective truth. Insisting on objectivity is not a rejection or denigration of our agency and self-aware subjectivity but a matter of highlighting due diligence towards right reason, truth and prudence; something an average seven year old is aware of though may not be able to elaborate in detail to the satisfaction of internet hyperskeptics or those posing in the academy as founts of wisdom. That this has to be gone over again and again is a sign of just how far current education and thought leadership have betrayed our civilisation into mortal peril. KF kairosfocus

Being self-aware that I exist, is a case where the warrant is undeniably certain for the one involved, is self-evident and undeniably true thus warranted to utter certainty. It therefore passes the successful warrant test and is not only a matter of subjective awareness but is objectively warranted.

Now explain the need for the term "objectively". Why do you say "objectively warranted" rather than e.g. "subjectively warranted"? Why do you use the term "objectively"? What does it mean? Origenes

Origenes, we are self-aware agents and so every item of our cognition passes through our subjectivity. As has been highlighted ever so many times, our agency is finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed. Thus, we in prudence have duties to truth, right reason and warrant. It is successful warrant that leads to credible knowledge, to objectivity. Which is not perfect or unchangeable access to truth [save in limited cases] but is tested and found reliable, good enough for government work so to speak. Scientific knowledge is a good case in point. Being self-aware that I exist, is a case where the warrant is undeniably certain for the one involved, is self-evident and undeniably true thus warranted to utter certainty. It therefore passes the successful warrant test and is not only a matter of subjective awareness but is objectively warranted. Turning to our awareness of others who are our neighbours, we have a weaker degree of warrant because we lack their direct access to self awareness, but to moral certainty, we know them to be self-aware also. That is, it would be irresponsible and unreasonable to reject or act on such rejection. Your fixation on the subjectivity of the experience of self awareness should be balanced by due recognition of the significance of warrant. Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually contradictory concepts or states of affairs; one can be and often is subjectively aware of successfully warranted, credibly and reliably known truth. One can be aware of truth but can be unsure of warrant, even though valid warrant exists. One can have high subjective certainty but be deluded or deceived or simply in error. All of such we know by age seven. . This I have pointed out several times. KF kairosfocus

Ram, there are two different kinds of ignorance, and this is morally significant. Simple, primary ignorance, whereby one has no effective access to know about X. Then, there is secondary, willful, guilty ignorance where one knows or should acknowledge X, but suppresses the knowledge through various means at individual or community or even civilisational level. A sadly relevant example today, is the ongoing, 1 million more per week holocaust of our living posterity in the womb, well past 800+ millions since the 70's. In a civilisation on hell-bent voyages of folly under mutinous, looter steersmen on our ships of state [yes, I allude here to Plato's parable and to Luke's real-life case study in Ac 27], there are many, many other cases in point enabled by deeply flawed and even patently absurd ideologies. We are on a reckless voyage to shipwreck. By contrast with such folly, the reality of conscience testifying to built in law, the manifest first duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant and wider prudence [your argument illustrates how these govern reasoning], etc show that we are governed by built-in morally freighted law, law that needs no parliament or judge ruling from a bench to establish it. In fact, governments are duty-bound to acknowledge such, where untruth and refusal to duly recognise and respect neighbour are foundational to injustice. Such has long been recognised and unsurprisingly, a capital case in point is the Roman statesman and Stoic thinker, Cicero, 100 years before Paul penned an epistle to Rome. Here, as he noted in a later passage in De Legibus, he summarises received wisdom on core law:

, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC

In short, we are guilty as charged and we know it; but we are tempted to suppress such painful knowledge through personal and collective defences against cognitive dissonance. So, we have secondary, guilty willful suppression of moral law we know or should know tied to warped thinking. That is what, say, the apostle Paul spoke to in Eph 4, in pointing out how the Christian gospel, anchored on the truth of the risen Christ [500 unshakeable witnesses and prophecies in detail many centuries before] and with integral gospel ethics, establishes a shining city- on- a- hill in a guiltily dark world, counterculture:

Eph 4: 11 And [the risen Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds3 and teachers,4 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,5 to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ . . . . 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,6 which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another . . . [ESV]

We could go on, but that makes the key point of our willful guilt and suppression of that guilt by way of sawing off the branch on which we all must sit. But, that is not all. The inescapable evidence of our reasoning and arguing, especially in the heightened form, quarrelling, shows that we know ourselves to be governed by said built in law, the first duties, to truth, right reason. warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour so also fairness and justice etc. Attempts to deny, object, dismiss or evade invariably rhetorically pivot on said principles as may be readily seen above. In the case of right reason, we literally cannot compose a coherent message without relying on distinct identity and so to its close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle -- sometimes by fallacious appeal to quantum superposition of states etc. As Paul wrote, likely citing a C1 Rhetoric 101 example:

1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]

The fact, then, that so many seek to overturn this cluster is as strong a sign of the folly of our age as can be asked for. This is an era of willful, guilty folly and utter, patently absurd incoherence. Now, as for the exchanges in-thread on the theology, I note again, that this is a day where average level people are generally not systematically educated on relevant theology, philosophy, jurisprudence etc, too often average parsons too, so we need to consult those who have actually studied the subject soundly at professional level and have built up expertise. Half-blind stumbling around on flawed or limited analogies etc is only going to cloud and confuse the issue and lend to cognitive dissonance defences. That is why I have pointed out that UD is not an appropriate forum for the discussion; we need relevant experts. We also need patience to follow a case from its foundational warrant forward [starting, here, with Jesus, the 500 witnesses to his resurrection and the centuries old fulfilled prophecies, which also include the core of the theology of atonement, redemption and salvation-rescue]. Otherwise, in our clouded, cognitive dissonance haunted thinking we will simply fall afoul of another warning by Paul:

1 Cor 1: 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach2 to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men . . . . 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being4 might boast in the presence of God . . . . 2: 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— 10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.4

Now, too, above, I have noted on one analogy that is found in scripture, in key texts including the verse that leads up to Jn 3:16, which seems to have been repeatedly glided by above:

Jn 3: 9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the [--> as in, leading, Scripture, theology and law] teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you6 do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.7 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.8 [--> note, this is Dominical, a direct quote of Jesus in theological conversation with the leading teacher of Israel] 16 “For God so loved the world,9 that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him . . . . 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

The premise is, we are all envenomated fatally with sin and are exhibiting symptoms of death. One of these happens to be clouded warped thinking; especially on morally freighted subjects, due to patent cognitive dissonance and defence mechanisms. So, we need to come to enough self awareness to seek antivenin. The antivenin is in Messiah, the sinless freely offered substitute who came in redemptive love. Life for a look of penitent trust, but the issue then becomes our propensity to cling to darkness and flee light like cockroaches suddenly exposed. Similarly, from Genesis, we see the note, crush the head of the snake but at the cost of a wound, the bruised heel. Here, is a beginning point. For a prophetic pivot, I point to the then 700 year old prophecy in Isa 53:

Isa 53: 4 Surely he [the wounded healer, Messiah] has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? 9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;7 when his soul makes8 an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days [--> resurrection]; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see9 and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

Much is built up from that. And it is far from absurd, nor is the assertion of one who admits to breakdown of sensitivity to truth going to be of any particular force once we move beyond stumbling around on limited or flawed analogies. As a further point, the opening of Ep Heb is significant:

Heb 1: 1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs . . .

More can be elaborated (which given an ongoing life crisis involving triple bereavement, I lack the energy to carry forward), but this is sufficient to provide a cautionary balance. KF PS: As a start for onward reflection by those so inclined or perplexed, I suggest https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/substitutionary-atonement/ https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement http://files1.wts.edu/uploads/images/files/71.2.Hood.The%20Cross%20in%20the%20New%20Testament.pdf That's from a quick web search. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @412

Origenes: For one thing, you have simply stated that “I exist” is an “objective truth”, and completely ignored my objection that “I exist” is as subjective as a statement can possibly be.

Kairosfocus: I have not made empty statements that it is objective; this may be readily verified by scrolling up; you have set up and knocked over a strawman.

You have repeatedly stated that “I exist” [the most subjective statement ever produced in the entire human history] is an objective truth. Two quick examples, there are certainly more:

Kairosfocus @64: Origenes, I exist, a perception of consciousness, is self-evident and OBJECTIVELY true. KF

KF @186: (…) self-conscious awareness is an inescapable truth for one in that position and so is necessarily and OBJECTIVELY — warranted to self evident certainty — the case.

And I have argued over and over, that the term ‘objective’ cannot be connected to the statement “I exist”. Origenes

Querius: William J Murray and Origenes are firemen on a ladder... You're making WJM's point. Your analogy is indeed absurd, which is exactly WJM's point: your brand of Christian theology is absurd. You analogy shows exactly why it's absurd, and that you acknowledge that it is. --Ram ram

Querius: Because they love the pleasure of their sins and find all kinds of plausible excuses and rationalizations to defend their behavior. In my experience, it’s generally not an intellectual issue. If excuses and rationalizations provide a psychological barrier to understanding the situation they are in, then they don't clearly understand the situation they are in being in danger of eternal torment. But sometimes, there’s an intellectual stumbling block, and maybe I can help them remove it Which means they don't clearly understand the situation they are in with respect to eternal torment. Many years ago in college, a friend of mine took me to a nursing home where I met a friend of his, a middle-aged man who was dying of cancer and he knew he was at the end. I asked him whether he thought about getting right with God before he passed away. He had many objections to God, so I asked him what he had to lose by just being willing to try. His answer? “I have too much to give up.” He passed away two days later. Then he didn't clearly understand the situation he was in with respect to eternal torment, assuming your anecdote is a faithful account. How silly is it to imagine a “bottomless pit” as mentioned in Revelation? It was very silly until 1964. But, we now research black holes, which are indeed bottomless pits. Black holes aren't bottomless pits. Their popular name is a bit of a misnomer. They are bodies within definite locations in spacetime geometry, that have mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, with no other properties. If you fell into one, you wouldn't be falling endlessly into a "pit". Your body would lose all features and information, including subatomic differentiation, and the mass value would add to the black hole's mass. the revealed Word of God is the most reliable source. Only if one is convinced "it" is indeed revealed Word of God. (There are several configurations of "the Bible." The Jews have theirs, Catholics have theirs, Protestants have theirs, etc. Parts of the Bibles could be true, and other parts not true. Others think the Quran or Book of Mormon is the most reliable source. Etc.) --Ram ram

William J Murray: We can only be saved by the being that forced us into the situation in the first place by creating us into this life. God is “saving” us from the conditions He created and forced us into.

Origenes: I do not believe that God wants me to obey rules that I do not understand.

William J Murray and Origenes are firemen on a ladder trying to rescue a person trapped in a high-rise apartment building on fire. Time is of the essence. The resident exclaims,

“Whenever there’s a fire, I see the ‘Fire’ department’s red trucks. You’re forcing me to accept your assistance when you could have prevented the fire and you probably set the fire in the first place!" Unless I fully understand the nature of the so-called ‘fire’ and the logic of your actions and priorities, I reject your coercion from the threat of death by eternal flames. I accept death as inevitable, but reject the existence of the so-called ‘fireman’ and so-called fire.”

Certainly, there are contrarian analogies, but my point is that this one legitimately exists, thus the reality you reject definitely Exists in one of those infinite number of Multiverses. -Q Querius

Kairosfocus,

William J Murray: For example, you have demonstrated absolutely no capacity to understand mental reality theory, no capacity to take corrections on your misinterpretations concerning it (or any other corrections,) and always answer questions in the form of rote, repeated responses.

Translation: You disagree with me, so you must be mentally deficient.

Origenes: To repurpose a line from Bill Burr, I could wake up from a drunken stupor and still come up with nine better creations that the one the Christian God is supposed to have made.

And your excellent response:

Kairosfocus: As for suggesting that your wisdom to create a world exceeds that of God, that too is a sadly revealing line.

Origenes' is a type of argument from ignorance as might be restated as, “I can easily design plants and animals far better than the ones in the world today. The Krebs Cycle? Child’s play for me, in fact, I’ve been designing a much better version because I’m far smarter than your so-called 'God'!" -Q Querius

WJM You seem to be confused about the role of logic yourself. By the rules of subjectivity, it is equally logically valid to say Jesus is the son of God, as it is to say, Jesus is not the son of God. Logic only forces to a conclusion with objective issues, not with subjective issues. And because God is defined in terms of being agency of decisions, and all agency of decisions are inherently subjective, therefore God is subjective. There is no logical error in Christianity. mohammadnursyamsu

@Kairosfocus you are too kind with some clowns. Sometimes to be too kind it's not a virtue and can do more harm than good. To be kind, gentle, honest, humble of heart doesn't mean to accept stupidity and imbecility from proven blockheads. Sandy

WJM, all that is needed to see what has gone so severely wrong is to quote your direct statements on duty to truth: "I don’t recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don’t know of any such duty." Until you rehabilitate yourself, which will take considerable time and work, you have by own-goal broken your credibility. It's sad but it is reality. KF kairosfocus

I was just out having a smoke on my porch and I had an epiphany about this. Christians are involved in a worldview that is depends entirely on respect/fear of authority/power and a misplaced sense of credibility. Logic is only applied after the other elements have reached their conclusion. If we take the Bible and separate it into two categories - claims vs witnessed events, and assumed all the witnessed facts (not opinions or beliefs about those facts) actually happened, this becomes crystal clear. Let's postulate that all of the witnessed miracles occurred, like parting of the Red Sea, raising of the dead, prophecy coming true, etc. None of those events logically imply God had anything to do with any of it. However, because some very powerful being appears to certain people and calls itself God, and can perform miracles or fulfill prophecy (that it itself conveniently provided,) and makes promises and threats while demonstrating that power, this triggers an irrational psychological response of fear, respect and the credibility that it is what it claims and did and can do what it claims. But, those are just its claims. Just because I claim to be able to do X, and then do X, doesn't mean I am who I claim to be nor does it mean I can also do Y, or that I did some Z nobody witnessed. The belief that the being is what he claims to be, and can do or did things that have not been witnessed, is built entirely on fear- and respect-driven credibility of claimed authority because of displays of power. Just because a being can do all the things witnessed, doesn't logically imply that being is God, no matter how miraculous those things appear to be. It's all about power, authority, fear-based respect, admiration, love and credibility. None of it logically implies the being in question is actually God. KF's style of response makes perfect sense now. None of it holds up to logical scrutiny, but it was never - ultimately - about logic in the first place. William J Murray

Origines, I have clarified repeatedly that objectivity arises as a necessity where we are error prone, hence my pointing to warrant. In respect of self-awareness and the proposition I exist, I pointed out that this is a case of self-evidence, which is a means of warrant. The attempt to deny, for example, is self-referentially absurd as one must exist to doubt or deny and as I noted a rock cannot be deluded that it is self aware. On the part of attributing similar self awareness to others, one recognises like creaturehood and accepts their testimony and behaviour, to moral certainty. I have not made empty statements that it is objective; this may be readily verified by scrolling up; you have set up and knocked over a strawman. As for WJM, his problem unfortunately starts long before arguments and assertions, he has removed himself from self awareness of duty to truth and of recognising that in his arguments he too constructs claims that implicitly pivot on our self-awareness of and recognition of said duties. I have warned that untruth is the foundation of injustice, for cause. Let me again point out the negative form, in hope that its force may register at long last, as this is literally foundational to sound civilisation:

Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless.

I trust the issue is clear. KF kairosfocus

KF said:

As for suggesting that your wisdom to create a world exceeds that of God, that too is a sadly revealing line.

I didn't say any such thing. I said that I could come up with a better creation than the (hypothetical) Christian God is supposed to have made (according to descriptions offered here.) I've noticed that you and many other Christians here seem to suffer from a kind of inability to understand certain basic conceptual things in these kinds of discussion. When someone says what I said above it's not referencing any actual God; it's referencing a hypothetical God Christians believe in. You react as if I'm addressing the Christian God as if I hold that hypothetical God to be the real God. Also, it's painfully obvious that the credibility of any person making an argument only matters if their argument relies on the other people involved believing something they say, like a personal experience or some claim of evidence or fact in dispute that cannot be verified by reference to other credible sources. There is nothing about our argument that requires that you believe something I say just because I say it. Therefore, my credibility is entirely irrelevant. But, it seems you cannot see that. Again, it appears to be some kind of cognitive issue, some inability to think on a conceptual level outside of your own strict perspective. Perhaps credibility is the actually basic currency of your entire belief system and thought process, now that I think about it, because you always seem to punt to "credible" writers and philosophers and religious figures to support your views, as if their credibility adds some kind of weight to their reasoning. You have constantly and continually reposted paragraphs and paragraphs of what those other people say instead of just directly answering questions and making the case yourself. I guess your whole concept of reality is based on credibility, not actual logic. Perhaps there are some people who prefer to organize their concept of reality around what credible authorities say; perhaps some people order their concept of reality around a risk vs reward analysis. Perhaps there are some that have both in operation. That would make sense when it comes to people that adopt or can remain in Christianity. That's an interesting idea I need to spend more time on. IOW, I wonder if you actually have any capacity in yourself to defend your position logically without copy-pasting Cicero and others and just asserting ontological positions as absolute facts and re-issuing appeals to consequences and attempts at mind reading. I think I was wrong about you. I think you might be a poseur who is borrowing weight from other "credible" sources and depending on them to make your case for you, bludgeoning us here with long copy-paste tracts that don't even address or answer challenges presented here. For example, you have demonstrated absolutely no capacity to understand mental reality theory, no capacity to take corrections on your misinterpretations concerning it (or any other corrections,) and always answer questions in the form of rote, repeated responses. You acted from the beginning like you completely understood it because you never asked a single question about it; you just provided rote responses based on keywords you completely took out of context and didn't understand - or care, when corrected multiple times - what those words meant under MRT. You insist that your errant perspectives and assumptions are valid even when they obviously have nothing to do with MRT. William J Murray

KF said:

WJM, credibility is absolutely pivotal,

Only to those who are trying to avoid the argument and/or the evidence. William J Murray

Kairosfocus, Nowhere in our discussion about "objective" vs "subjective" have you directly addressed my arguments. Nowhere did you offer a definition of "objective" that addresses my concerns. For one thing, you have simply stated that "I exist" is an "objective truth", and completely ignored my objection that "I exist" is as subjective as a statement can possibly be. Something very similar occurs in your discussion with WJM. He has asked you the same question over and over again, yet you simply refuse to address it. Yet here you are talking about credibility and undermining discussion ... Origenes

WJM, credibility is absolutely pivotal, and your declaration is sadly utterly discrediting; it undermines discussion. There is now a different agenda, rehabilitation. KF PS: As for suggesting that your wisdom to create a world exceeds that of God, that too is a sadly revealing line. kairosfocus

Here's a more loving and much better way to create exactly what God created, and for it to play out exactly the same way, with one difference that would make no difference other than that it would result in zero "eternal suffering" for any sentient being with self-aware consciousness. If we postulate that self-aware, sentient beings with free will must encounter and be around other people that who make bad choices that would represent those being going to hell, then instead of making those self-aware beings, replace them with NPCs - non-aware, sentient automatons. Everyone who will end up going to heaven is a real, self-aware being. In this scenario, God hasn't lied to anyone, and is not even being deceptive. If the self-aware people actually made the wrong choice, they would go to hell, and that is 100% true, but God knew beforehand that they would make the right choice, so there was no actual risk. Since God doesn't want any real person to suffer for eternity, then the roles of the necessary "wrong-choicers" are played by NPCs God creates to fulfill that duty. You end up with a creation that plays out exactly the same in every respect, except at the end no self-aware, conscious person ends up suffering in hell for eternity. To repurpose a line from Bill Burr, I could wake up from a drunken stupor and still come up with nine better creations that the one the Christian God is supposed to have made. William J Murray

Thus Origenes regardless of the fact that you think your sins are not that big of a deal and are not “deservant of the death penalty; let alone eternal torment”, the fact of the matter is that God Himself, as revealed in Jesus Christ, (whom without which you would not even be aware of sin in the first place), has a very different, and far more serious, take on what constitutes sin and on what the consequences of sin actually are.

God: “At 14 augustus 1984 at noon 13.33 you looked lustfully at Sophia Johnson. This is an enormous sin, you have been informed about that fact, yet you choose to do it” Me: “Indeed. I did not understand why it is a sin, so I did not accept …. ” God: “I want you to follow my rules whether you understand them or not. Therefor I condemn you to … ” Me: “You made me a free person. If you want me to follow your rules without understanding, why not make robots?” God: “That’s actually an interesting question ...” Origenes

KF said:

WJM, at this point, regrettably, you have discredited yourself: “I don’t recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don’t know of any such duty.”

As I have repeatedly pointed out, my "credibility," indeed anyone's credibility, is irrelevant wrt to the logic of the argument and the evidence presented as links in this forum. You can use my "lack of credibility" as an excuse for not doing your self-ascribed "duty" to truth by truthfully answering the questions I've posed if you want. But, it's still you refusing to answer questions that are logically, decisively important in this debate - and, frankly, I think it's because you know you cannot answer those questions truthfully without destroying your own argument. For others that don' know, KF has argued that it doesn't take ontology to recognize that we have these actual "First Duties." That's why, IMO, he won't answer the questions, because without the ontological presupposition of God as authority and Hell/Heaven as consequences, no such "First Duties" can be logically said to exist, much less recognized as actually existing. William J Murray

Origines, the duty of neighbour-love, pivot of relevant commands and gateway to fairness and justice, is not something particularly hard to understand once we recognise our mutuality of status, dignity and worth. Having already highlighted Rom 2 and 13, I note how Locke used this at the pivotal point in his 2nd essay on civil govt by way of an expansion of his citation of "the judicious Hooker":

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

The issue is not intelligibility but our self-induced moral numbness and dullness. Paul observed:

Eph 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. [ESV]

I doubt that such are particularly hard to understand or connect to core ethical principles. Then, here is the discussion by Moses on neighbour love:

Lev 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life[a] of your neighbor: I am the Lord. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. [ESV]

KF Again, not particularly difficult of understanding and utterly non-arbitrary. KF kairosfocus

WJM, at this point, regrettably, you have discredited yourself: "I don’t recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don’t know of any such duty." I suggest you need to go through a rehabilitation process that restores recognition of and sensitivity to the duty of truthfulness; which will take a fair bit of time. And no, duties do not compel, they express the oughtness force of right acts of free creatures, where error, wrong and folly can be chosen instead. Meanwhile any rhetorical effect of your comments still depends on our implicit acknowledgement of the listed first duties, esp to truth to right reason, to warrant and wider prudence. KF kairosfocus

Bornagain @384

Yet, God has a very different view of sin than you do. Adam and Eve probably also thought within themselves that eating a fruit off a tree was not that big of a deal, certainly not worthy of death.

I do not believe that God wants me to obey rules that I do not understand. This is crucial: only a fully informed free act has value, can be a sin. If Christianity does not appreciate that fact, then it is mistaken.

Likewise, people, for the most part, think that simply hating someone, or simply looking at a women lustfully, is not that big of a deal. (…) and it certainly is not something (...) worthy of death.

I do not believe that God has a problem with sexuality by mutual consent between adults and understands it when someone has antipathy for the murderer of one’s wife and kids.

But Jesus had a very different take on it,

On some matters, indeed. Obviously he makes some great points, but some things simply do not make sense to me. I am a free person and WRT morality I (try to) act in accord with rules that I understand & endorse. Origenes

KF, I see you refuse to do your hypothetical duty and answer the questions I asked. It seems you are being duplicitous or evasive. They are simple questions that require only simple answers, yet you've refused to answer them for months now. For any other Christian here: I see my question in a previous comment has not been answered by anyone. I'll repeat it here: Would you still do your duty to God if the consequence of doing your duty means you will spend eternity being tormented in hell, and those who do not do their duty get eternal life in heaven? If not, why not? Anyone up to answering those questions? William J Murray

Ram said:

At any rate, your characterization that “they didn’t want to be saved” is absurd. Absolutely nobody doesn’t want to be saved, if the story is true, except perhaps an insane person.

Oh, it's even worse than that. We can only be saved by the being that forced us into the situation in the first place by creating us into this life. God is "saving" us from the conditions He created and forced us into. William J Murray

Bornagain77 @389

Social awareness does not equal a coherent objective moral law.

That’s not my claim. My claim is that morality stems in part from a person’s social awareness. Social awareness does not equal moral laws in the same sense that intelligence does not equal mathematical laws.

You might as well claim that your moral sense randomly evolved for as far as ‘Social awareness’ gets you to having a objectively real and coherent moral basis.

A person is a subject and when morality comes from persons, as is my claim, then it makes no sense to call it ‘objective’. That said, I have argued that, since we are at a fundamental level similar beings, we all converge on roughly the same moral laws given a certain level of social awareness. And I have argued that this process is similar to how we all arrive at the same mathematical and logical truths, given a certain intellectual level. You do not argue that we cannot get to an “objectively real coherent basis” for mathematics by using our intellect. Why is that? Origenes

Ram @396,

If a person has a real understanding of the reality of the situation, why wouldn’t he want to be saved?

Because they love the pleasure of their sins and find all kinds of plausible excuses and rationalizations to defend their behavior. In my experience, it's generally not an intellectual issue. But sometimes, there's an intellectual stumbling block, and maybe I can help them remove it--I've studied a lot of these. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Many years ago in college, a friend of mine took me to a nursing home where I met a friend of his, a middle-aged man who was dying of cancer and he knew he was at the end. I asked him whether he thought about getting right with God before he passed away. He had many objections to God, so I asked him what he had to lose by just being willing to try. His answer? "I have too much to give up." He passed away two days later. Regarding the theology of the afterlife, I recognize that it's extremely difficult to understand a completely different, eternal frame of reference. If we have trouble understanding the quantum mechanics of this world, how much stranger should we expect the workings of the afterlife? So let me ask you a question. How silly is it to imagine a "bottomless pit" as mentioned in Revelation? It was very silly until 1964. But, we now research black holes, which are indeed bottomless pits. Ok, so if someone falls into a black hole, how long would it take them to cross the event horizon? A day? A thousand years? Both? I can confidently answer some theological questions with "I honestly don't know, and I think no one else does, either." The things that are unclear in the scriptures, I hold loosely. The things that are crystal clear, I cling to with love. My point with regard to the OP is that morality and ethics do exist, but what are they founded on? Culture? Logic? Relatively on a case-by-case basis? Human laws that change over time? I believe humans have bent shards of an eternal morality and ethics, but the revealed Word of God is the most reliable source. And once a person experiences the mercy and forgiveness of God, their values change: hopefully they Do justice, Love mercy, and Walk in humility with God (Micah 6:8). -Q Querius

Origenes @385,

So, a murderer doesn’t do jail time at all, but in his place an innocent person spends his life in jail. And that satisfies justice in your book?

Yes. By hating a person, I’m that murderer. By lusting after women, I’m an adulterer. But as a person who has repented many times and been forgiven, this transforms me to be merciful to others. I’ve become a different person.

Q: The Bible indicates that sometimes Mercy should be served rather than Justice. There’s a concept throughout that Mercy can triumph over Justice.

O: Mercy would mean that the fine is not paid by anyone.

Sometimes judges in courts of law can suspend the fine. One can argue that the state pays the fine by not collecting it. According to the Bible, the penalty for my transgressions was paid by Jesus being tortured to death. In response, I treasure mercy, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. This isn’t a lot of empty talk. I’ve been writing, visiting, encouraging, mentoring, and helping parolees and prisoners who are very repentant for what they’ve done (and in a couple of cases, for what they didn’t actually do—that happens, too). They were thieves, armed robbers, rapists, child molesters, addicts, pimps, and drug dealers.

Q: Have you ever experienced mercy rather than getting was due you?

O: That must be the case, but no concrete example comes to me.

If you do eventually remember an example, try to remember what your response was at the time.

Q: But I do recognize that your values don’t align with mine and you’re more of an “eye-for-an-eye” person, right?

O: In the context of unrepentant criminals, I do think so, yes. I really want them to experience what they have done to others. With these guys “mercy” is not the first thing on my mind.

Understood. And what about repentant criminals? Same? Let me say that both justice and mercy are appropriate. Either one without the other doesn’t have good results. Let me also note that it takes wisdom to know what's needed and when. That’s why I’ve taken a former parolee who spent 19 years behind bars along with me on prison visits (before Covid) and have asked for his advice many times. He’s become one of my best friends in the process. -Q Querius

Querius: they sadly perish in the Lake of Fire because they didn’t want to be saved. If a person has a real understanding of the reality of the situation, why wouldn't he want to be saved? Take an atheist. He doesn't see what you're seeing. The evidence in his mind militates against your view (or the Bible's view, assuming argueno the Bible has a single view. Jews and Christians don't see eye to eye. And neither do various Christian sects.) He may even be a former Christian who previously believed in Jesus with all his heart. But for him the evidence is now overwhelmingly against that concept being true. What now? Believe against your better judgement or else? At any rate, your characterization that "they didn’t want to be saved" is absurd. Absolutely nobody doesn't want to be saved, if the story is true, except perhaps an insane person. This is why the concept of eternal suffering for humans is absurd. It could be applicable to rebel angels who have a perfect knowledge of the truth. But then again, even that idea is absurd, because why would an angel rebel and curse himself to eternal destruction? That implies insanity. Apocalyptic theology doesn't make sense when all the entailments are considered. If true, I would think that such a God would provide a taste to everyone of it as a disincentive. He would be surprised how that would work wonders with his sales figures. --Ram ram

BA77: besides people living their lives as if morality is objectively real, I can also put some physical evidence behind the fact that morality is objectively real. No doubt that what people call "fairness" and "altruism" exist objectively. Except for a small subset of individuals (socialpaths, psychopaths), they seem to be principle features of human nature. If you want to call this "morality", I have no problem with that. But that's where it ends, because the application of fairness and altruism varies widely between individuals and groups due to the fact that many variables are involved which are not set to identical values from person to person. As an experiment, get 10 people in a room and try to define "fairness." Everyone will have a fairly compatible idea of that in the abstract, but then start getting into the details of application and you'll see what it's like to herd cats. (Sidebar: there are two kinds of fairness in operation among humans. One is where the rules of some situation are established and agreed upon by all: the external authority concept. This can be a game of chess, a religion, laws of the land, etc. The second is more vague because subjective variables come into play that are emotion based. It's the latter to which I refer above. A child will utter, "that's not fair", because she has some notion of "equality" or "equity" that is preceived to be violated. If brother gets an ice cream cone, then so should sister. Many disputes about fairness are much more complicated than that and can be informed by several variables that differ between individuals. E.g., what is the "fair share" of taxes that a million dollar income should have to pay? People have wildly divergent views about such things because of different "values" variables, and the political squabblings never end.) --Ram ram

William J Murray @383,

So, what happens to people who don’t repent?

According to the Bible, they receive perfect justice, just as they’ve chosen. They stand trial, they’re found guilty, and separated from God, they sadly perish in the Lake of Fire because they didn’t want to be saved. -Q Querius

Ram, conscience is a faculty that gives us self-awarenes of moral government. However, it can be warped, misinformed, benumbed or worse. That is why I have repeatedly highlighted sound conscience. What makes for soundness is due attention and diligence in regards to first duties, truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence especially. In that context, successful warrant leads to credible knowledge of duties to right conduct, virtue, the good etc, which by that warrant will be objective. Warrant, of course is much broader than proofs. KF kairosfocus

WJM: >>It [= logic] has no power to compel attention, but adherence to the fundamental principles is inescapable for any sentient being. You cannot have a coherent thought without them. Beyond that, though, no – nobody is compelled to adhere to rationally supportable behaviors.>> And yet we know that rhetorical manipulation is common and pivots on the intuitive knowledge and acknowledgement of the binding force of the duties of responsible, rational freedom. This includes for example, attempts to deflect the binding force of such duties. Yes, freedom implies freedom to be willfully irrational and manipulative to the point of cynical deception, but even those things are forced to appeal to the first duties. >>I don’t recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don’t know of any such duty>> And so, you have acknowledged that your credibility is nil or negative, with benumbed conscience. Nil, an untrustworthy source whose remarks may happen to be true. Negative, a willfully deceptive source to be regarded as most likely manipulatively twisting, half-slicing or suppressing the truth. Habitually. That is not a good place to be in, and it is not a happy thing to have to acknowledge. I can only suggest that you would be well advised to soberly reconsider and change; which would have to be demonstrated through a lengthy period of rehabilitation that rebuilds a modicum of confidence that we are not dealing with the negative form of the first duties:

Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless.

Remember, the first duties are foundational law, the historically pivotal basis for the rise of the lawful state and onward as the printing revolution, vernacular translation of Scripture and the ferment surrounding the reformation paved the way, constitutional, cultural buttress stabilised democracies that balance freedom and lawful order with accountable government. That is what the premises you are explicitly advocating undermine. For starters, it is no accident that Pilate cynically observed "what is truth" as he set out to judicially knowingly murder an innocent man for perceived political convenience. Untruth is the foundation of injustice. KF kairosfocus

Well actually, besides people living their lives as if morality is objectively real, I can also put some physical evidence behind the fact that morality is objectively real.

Oct. 2021 - In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738586 Oct 2021 Thus in conclusion, the moral argument for God does now indeed have some fairly impressive empirical evidence behind it that satisfies Kant’s criteria of a beyond space and time influence. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738672 updated study that goes with the preceding link update: Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis – 2018 Discussion This update of the Mossbridge et al. (2012) meta-analysis related to the so called predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) responses to future random stimuli, covers the period January 2008- July 2018. Overall, we found 19 new studies describing a total of 36 effect sizes. Differently from the statistical approach of Mossbridge et al., in this meta-analysis we used a frequentist and a Bayesian multilevel model which allows an analysis of all effect sizes reported within a single study instead of averaging them. Both the frequentist and the Bayesian analyses converged on similar results, making our findings quite robust. ,,, Conclusion This update confirms the main results reported in Mossbridge et al. (2012) original meta-analysis and gives further support to the hypothesis of predictive physiological anticipatory activity of future random events. This phenomenon may hence be considered among the more reliable within those covered under the umbrella term “psi” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/

bornagain77

BA77: (speaking to Origenes) if you don’t believe in objective moral law then why do you pretend as if anything you ever do is morally significant? Some people find their moral law from the divine spark of Light within. A man may agree with another man about their inner Light. But the Light is necessarily subjective, I think, in the sense you are using "objective." ram

Social awareness does not equal a coherent objective moral law. You might as well claim that your moral sense randomly evolved for as far as 'Social awareness' gets you to having a objectively real and coherent moral basis. bornagain77

Bornagain77 @387

Well, by golly, if you don’t believe in objective moral law then why do you pretend as if anything you ever do is morally significant?

I have explained this in my post @386. Was I being unclear or didn't you read it? Origenes

"I do not believe in ‘objective moral laws’" Well, by golly, if you don't believe in objective moral law then why do you pretend as if anything you ever do is morally significant? Even your participation on this very thread reveals that you believe truth to an objectively morally good thing for you to pursue. and thus reveals that you yourself cannot truly live your life as if objective morality does not actually exist. i.e. Your position is self refuted by the very way you live your own life! bornagain77

Bornagain77 @384 From your responses I get the feeling that we are talking past each other. Anyway ....

Thus your claim that “No (external) judge” was necessary for you to judge yourself of sin collapses in on itself. If God did not exist you simply would never be aware that such a thing as sin even existed.

When I wrote about an 'external judge' I was thinking about a human judge. Perhaps I wasn't clear. However we also have another difference in opinion. I do not believe in ‘objective moral laws’ which are alien to me, coming from a realm independent from me (God). In @43 I write:

O: Morality & ethics come from us, it is what we all agree on, given a certain level of social awareness. It is very similar as to how we all agree on “I think therefore I am”, “2 + 2 = 4”, “A = A”, and so on. (…) I would argue that we all arrive at roughly the same moral laws—— given a certain level of social awareness——, just as we all arrive at the same mathematical and logical truths——given a certain level of intellectual awareness. This is how things work, because, at a fundamental level, we are all similar beings.

Maybe I should add that, as a believer in reincarnation, when I write “I would argue that we all arrive at roughly the same moral laws—— given a certain level of social awareness”, that I am talking about persons who have lived multiple lives and who by doing so have acquired a certain level of social awareness. I hope I am being clear here. Origenes

Querius @375

O: . . . do you agree with me that justice is not satisfied when someone other than the perpetrator pays the fine? Something is clearly off.

No, actually I don’t agree.

So, a murderer doesn’t do jail time at all, but in his place an innocent person spends his life in jail. And that satisfies justice in your book?

The Bible indicates that sometimes Mercy should be served rather than Justice. There’s a concept throughout that Mercy can triumph over Justice.

Mercy would mean that the fine is not paid by anyone.

Have you ever experienced mercy rather than getting was due you?

That must be the case, but no concrete example comes to me.

But I do recognize that your values don’t align with mine and you’re more of an “eye-for-an-eye” person, right?

In the context of unrepentant criminals, I do think so, yes. I really want them to experience what they have done to others. With these guys “mercy” is not the first thing on my mind. Origenes

Origenes at 380 you state,

Before I answer your question, I would like to explain my vision on a few things. The best scenario, after a sin is committed, is for the sinner to repent. In such a case the sinner condemns (judges) himself, and brings himself in a state of remorse, which constitutes self-punishment. Next, as you wrote, “a truly repentant person would try to make restitution for the crime to the victim as best he could.” So, a truly repentant person judges himself, punishes himself and would try to make restitution for his crime. No (external) judge, and no imposed punishment required.

The flaw in your thinking here is that you think that God was not present in your becoming aware of your sin. i.e.,,, "No (external) judge",,,, Yet the moral law within your heart. that you self-admittedly are aware of, i.e. that made you aware that your action(s) were sinful and needed to be repented of in the first place, cannot exist without God.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

As Dr. Egnor recently succinctly stated, "every twinge of human conscience proves His (God's) existence.,,"

The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor -Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: ,,, Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence.,, https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/

Thus your claim that "No (external) judge" was necessary for you to judge yourself of sin collapses in on itself. If God did not exist you simply would never be aware that such a thing as sin even existed. Origenes you go on,,,

"I have done nothing deservant of the death penalty; let alone eternal torment.,,, I am not aware of any sins I committed against God that are worth mentioning."

Yet, God has a very different view of sin than you do. Adam and Eve probably also thought within themselves that eating a fruit off a tree was not that big of a deal, certainly not worthy of death. Likewise, people, for the most part, think that simply hating someone, or simply looking at a women lustfully, is not that big of a deal. Shoot everyone does it, and it certainly is not something that anyone would consider worthy of death. But Jesus had a very different take on it,

Matthew 5: 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Thus Origenes regardless of the fact that you think your sins are not that big of a deal and are not "deservant of the death penalty; let alone eternal torment", the fact of the matter is that God Himself, as revealed in Jesus Christ, (whom without which you would not even be aware of sin in the first place), has a very different, and far more serious, take on what constitutes sin and on what the consequences of sin actually are. In closing I note that you also stated, "the story that Jesus’ death serves justice".,, From you saying "the story" I take that to mean that you do not really believe that Jesus rose from the grave as a propitiation for our sins. If so, I suggest you study the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is, by far, the most scientifically scrutinized ancient relic of man and simply refuses to be explained by naturalistic processes,

Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

For instance, and to give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead, the following article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html

Basically, with the Shroud we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail. My question to atheists and non-Christians is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad genius! In short, I hold the Shroud to be authentic.

The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault - November 08, 2019 https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

In fact, on top of that, I hold the Shroud of Turin, via physical evidence gleaned from the Shroud, holds the key for unlocking the quote unquote 'theory of everything'. Specifically, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE

Verse:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

bornagain77

Querius, So, what happens to people who don't repent? William J Murray

Origenes “Yes I agree. However, do you agree with me that justice is not satisfied when someone other than the perpetrator pays the fine? Something is clearly off.” As the perpetrator I have paid the fine!! Romans 6:3–8 (ESV): Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. At the cross the wrath of God ( the fine if you will) was poured out on Christ. Because I am a Christian I was in Christ as that wrath was meted out so the fine, Gods wrath ,was poured out on me as well. Vivid vividbleau

William J Murray @359,

Such as, a perfectly good, all-knowing, all-powerful God created, out of all the possible options, the best possible reality construct for the purpose of reaching a final goal of maximum possible “goodness,” and the nature of that construct, as God knew, meant that a lot of people would end up in Hell being tormented forever.

I appreciate your respecting my commitment in following what the Bible actually says, rather than what theologians and philosophers have endlessly argued about over the centuries. It's made a huge difference to me--a breath of fresh air. The Bible NEVER states that God created the best possible reality. It states that components of God’s creation were “good” and the overall result was “very good.” The Bible also says that God will judge those who destroy the earth and will create “a new heaven and a new earth,” and that He created “the Lake of Fire,” a place of irredeemable destruction, specifically for the devil and his fallen angels. According to the Bible, God’s will is that NO human should perish, but rather that everyone should repent and find eternal life through Him. But you don't have to do His will. -Q Querius

Bornagain77 @370

Forget ‘collective sin’, are you yourself not a sinner before God?

Before I answer your question, I would like to explain my vision on a few things. The best scenario, after a sin is committed, is for the sinner to repent. In such a case the sinner condemns (judges) himself, and brings himself in a state of remorse, which constitutes self-punishment. Next, as you wrote, “a truly repentant person would try to make restitution for the crime to the victim as best he could.” So, a truly repentant person judges himself, punishes himself and would try to make restitution for his crime. No (external) judge, and no imposed punishment required. So when do we need a judge? Solely for the unrepentant sinner. The role of the judge is obvious, and imposed punishment here is meant as a substitute for the lack of remorse. The fact that the sinner does not repent is an unjust state of affairs [the psychopath who kills for pleasure], which the judge aims to rectify by imposed punishment. Imposed punishment here mimics remorse.

(…) and therefore are you yourself not worthy of the punishment that sin entails before God? The punishment of sin being, of course, your separation from God, and therefore, ultimately, your death since God is the source of your life.

I was born in a mortal body, so God sentenced me to death before I sinned. However, that has probably to do with ‘collective sin’ which I am supposed to forget. To answer your question, in my opinion I have done nothing deservant of the death penalty; let alone eternal torment. If the latter is my destiny, and yours is heaven, then let no one ever tell you that it was by my own choice.

And supposing you became repentant of your sin against God and God, in his mercy, decided to forgive you for your sins?

I am not aware of any sins I committed against God that are worth mentioning.

For me personally, Jesus’s atoning sacrifice for me before an infinitely holy and just God makes perfect sense, and always had made perfect sense to me ever since I was a child.. As one preacher once put it. Jesus atoning sacrifice is so easy that a child can immediately understand it, but is so complicated that it can keep Theologians busy for a lifetime.

I respect, not understand, that it makes sense to you. The nobility of self-sacrifice is obvious; it’s an expression of profound love. However, the story that Jesus' death serves justice——that he had to pay the price for the sin committed by others; and the idea that this is even possible ——doesn’t make sense to me, for the reasons I have given in previous posts. Additionally, as I have argued, imposed punishment is for unrepentant sinners only, which adds to the inappropriateness and injustice of Christ’s execution. Origenes

Would you still do your duty to God if the consequence of doing your duty means you will spend eternity being tormented in hell, and those who do not do their duty get eternal life in heaven? If not, why not? William J Murray

KF said:

WJM, logic has no magical power to compel attention much less adherence.

It has no power to compel attention, but adherence to the fundamental principles is inescapable for any sentient being. You cannot have a coherent thought without them. Beyond that, though, no - nobody is compelled to adhere to rationally supportable behaviors.

It is that we recognise that we are governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant) etc that lends force to logic. And more. KF

I don't recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don't know of any such duty. I can only know of a duty I have if I recognize (1) the authority that holds me responsible for doing my duty, and (2) the consequences for doing/not doing my duty. IF you actually believed you had a duty to ferret out truth and apply reason to the best of your ability, you'd stop trying to read my mind and you'd stop baldly asserting such duties exist and point out the necessary conditions for it to be said a duty exist or that I'm appealing to them. You see how I just now deliberately appealed to your hypothetical duties? Now, in the following paragraph, I'm going to appeal to the duties you claim govern you. In defiance of the very duty you claim to be faithfully fulfilling to the best of your ability, you have refused now for months to point out those necessary conditions. You have refused to even answer if you agree that, without those conditions, it cannot even be said that a duty actually exists. I suspect you will not answer these questions because you know, on some level, that to answer those questions is to undermine your entire argument. Answer this question, KF: Can it be said a duty actually exists if the following two conditions do not exist? 1. An authority that holds you responsible for fulfilling your duty 2. Consequences for doing/not doing your duty You see, I deliberately appealed, in the above, to your hypothetical duties. The reason I am not appealing to hypothetical duties otherwise is because I have absolutely no expectation that you will answer truthfully or rationally. I keep pointing out your reasoning flaws the way I do for no other reason than I enjoy doing it. When I don't enjoy it, I don't do it. As I've explained many times here, I do this because I enjoy it. I'm not in pursuit of truth. I like to take on rational arguments because I enjoy it. I argued here for over a year in defense of "objective morality" because I enjoyed doing it. I argue now against it because I enjoy it - not because I changed my mind about it; I never believed in it and never said I believed in it. Stop thinking you can mind-read me or know my motivations, KF, and just answer the questions if you're so dutiful to truth and reason. William J Murray

Ram @373,

On the contrary. Some of the comments here have clarified my own thinking. There may be others on the sidelines in the same situation. Things are being accomplished.

Yes, likewise! After sharing the cute “Marshmallow Test” video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX_oy9614HQ) with my wife, we talked about delayed gratification as significant component in a child's upbringing--that some cultures (such as traditional French) actually train self-control this way to young children. Then it occurred to me that there are many examples of delayed gratification in the Bible. Not only with Jacob and Esau, but in reference to Jesus himself as stated explicitly in Hebrews 12:2. Perhaps delayed gratification is actually a component of human ethics, breaking us out of the stimulus-response cycle. -Q Querius

WJM, logic has no magical power to compel attention much less adherence. It is that we recognise that we are governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant) etc that lends force to logic. And more. KF kairosfocus

Origenes @365,

. . . do you agree with me that justice is not satisfied when someone other than the perpetrator pays the fine? Something is clearly off.

No, actually I don’t agree. The Bible indicates that sometimes Mercy should be served rather than Justice. There’s a concept throughout that Mercy can triumph over Justice. By “triumph,” I mean that Mercy can have better long-term outcomes in some cases. There are many examples of this principle in the Bible. Have you ever experienced mercy rather than getting was due you? But I do recognize that your values don’t align with mine and you’re more of an “eye-for-an-eye” person, right? -Q Querius

KF: That’s a clue that objectors to first duties... What is the very first duty? --Ram ram

Jerry: The beat goes on as predicted. And nothing will be accomplished. On the contrary. Some of the comments here have clarified my own thinking. There may be others on the sidelines in the same situation. Things are being accomplished. --Ram ram

KF said

WJM, the balance remains, you are still sitting on the same branch of first duties governing our reasoning. KF

Nope. I'm sitting on the branch of logic, not the apparently imaginary branch of "duties" you're looking at. Where is the authority that holds me responsible to my duties? What are the consequences? Without those, I have no reason to consider those duties anything more than your imagination. William J Murray

@KF Yes subjectivity has something to do with agency. But you are still just bloviating about subjectivity, and not studying how subjectivity works, by trying to accurately reflect the rules used in common discourse, with subjective statements. Studying common discourse, we can obtain the rules for subjectivity and objectivity, which is creationism. Then we would have general agreement on the definitions of subjectivity and objectivity. Instead of as now, everyone bloviating their own ideas for another thousand posts or so. mohammadnursyamsu

Origins, Forget the complication of 'collective sin' for a moment, are you yourself not a sinner before God? and therefore are you yourself not worthy of the punishment that sin entails before God? The punishment of sin being, of course, your separation from God, and therefore, ultimately, your death since God is the source of your life. And supposing you became repentant of your sin against God and God, in his mercy, decided to forgive you for your sins? Would not the 'damage' caused by your sin against God, i.e. your crime against God, still be in effect? Just like the damage caused by a theft would still be in effect until that which was stolen was either replaced or returned? Did the damage caused by your sin against God just magically disappear after God chose to forgive you? Of course not! For justice to truly and fully served, it is not enough for a sinner to be repentant before God, but the damage and consequences of that sin, our separation from God, our death, must also be comprehensively dealt with. And I hold, indeed all Christianity holds, that it is impossible for you, no matter how repentant you may be of your sin before God, and no matter how many good works you may choose to do for God to try to make up for your sin against God, is ever going to be enough to bridge that 'infinite separation' from God, i.e. that 'death', that your sin before God brought about. Therefore, since it is impossible for you to ever truly make restitution to God for the 'infinite' damage that your sin against God caused, i.e. your death, and yet God wants to forgive you for your sins anyway, exactly how do the think the damage caused by your sin against God Is ever going to truly be paid for if not by God himself through God's atoning sacrifice through Jesus Christ? For me personally, Jesus's atoning sacrifice for my sins before an infinitely holy and just God makes perfect sense, and always had made perfect sense to me ever since I was a child.. As one preacher once put it. Jesus atoning sacrifice is so easy that a child can immediately understand it, but is so complicated that it can keep Theologians busy for a lifetime. Of related note, here is a fairly recent discovery on the Shroud of Turin, (a discovery that was brought about by advances in holographic imaging), that may interest you.

Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ RESEARCH 3 LETTERS ON SOLID OBJECT THREE HEBREW LETTERS IN RELIEF ON THE SURFACE OF THE OVAL SOLID OBJECT —UNDER THE BEARD IN THE NECK AREA — Excerpt: THE THREE HEBREW LETTERS: Hebrew is a language that is written and read from the right to the left. So the three letters that are visible are from right to left: TS’ADE—ALEPH—NUN (see image 9),,, There is however something more with the word TS’ON. Like we mentioned before, in KLEIN’s dictionary it is translated as: “small cattle, sheep and goats”. (This is like saying “soldiers” instead of army and TS’ON is NOT a flock but “sheep and goats”). The EXCEPTION for the translation of the word TS’ON, we find in Exodus 12:21. When the Israelites are ordered by God to prepare a lamb for sacrifice and after the sacrifice put the blood on the doorposts, the word that is used for lamb is SEH (Exodus 12:3) and that is correct. However, in Exodus 12:21 it says: “Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the (Passover) lamb”. The word that is used in the Bible is TS’ON and this is the ONLY TIME in the whole of the Bible that the word TS’ON is used as lamb and it is specifically translated as such for this occasion. In the Judaic Tradition this sentence in Exodus 12:21 is also understood (translated) as: “MAKE A SIGN WITH THE LAMB”, (By putting the blood of the lamb on the doorpost). The reason for this is that there is a very close relationship in the root and also in the sound, between the word TS’ON and the word TS’IOEN, and this word means “sign”. In the Judaic Tradition when words have the same root and/or sound, they are like “family of each other” and are very closely related in meaning and use. So, we find again a direct connection between the word TS’ON, and Jesus Christ, who is the Passover lamb, dying at the moment on Friday afternoon when in the Temple the sacrifice of the lambs took place. “The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of this world”. (See figure 16 and 17, the Passover Lamb). https://shroud3d.com/research-on-the-3d-materials/research-3-letters-on-solid-object/ Isaiah 53 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

bornagain77

WJM, the balance remains, you are still sitting on the same branch of first duties governing our reasoning. KF kairosfocus

PPS: We are NOT talking of "collective punishment" of the actually innocent, but about each and every one of us walking knowingly and willfully in wrong. Each is guilty, guilty, guilty, as we all know. Rhetoric that seeks to shift our own guilt is little more than projection as a defence against cognitive dissonance and the psychic pain of guilt. That is an example of the warping in view. kairosfocus

Folks, we are seeing precisely the bits and pieces exchanges on theology of redemption and atonement that are of little help to anyone and which is well off topic for UD. The fundamental issue is, there are experts and references that can address concerns of the perplexed. Such are not operating here at least on a regular basis, I suggest those seeking real answers go there, rhetorical exchanges and partial analogies apt to be twisted by clever objectors will lead to no responsible outcome. I do suggest that the antivenin concept outlined above has this, it comes directly from the text of John echoing a key incident in the salvation history of Israel; indeed the context is that of the famous Jn 3:16. We are all envenomated with a fatal dose, we are helpless all of us, worse the toxin warps our thinking so in our own sense of wisdom, our thinking is crooked as we are explicitly warned. In that context God in his wisdom sent one who crushed the serpent's head at cost of being a wounded healer, his heel so to speak was bruised. It is our response to same that gives us life for the look of penitent trust. A trust backed by hundreds of years of detailed prophecy, esp Isa 52 - 53. Fulfilled, esp. resurrection with 500 witnesses who could not be shaken by dungeon, fire, sword or much worse. With millions encountering God in saving, life transforming, miracle-working power through the face of Jesus. Those are truth anchors that will not start. KF PS: From Jn 3:

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus1 by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again2 [F/N: Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse 7] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.3 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You4 must be born again.’ 8 The wind5 blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the [--> note, emphasis, the leading teacher] teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you6 do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.7 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.8 16 “For God so loved the world,9 that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” [ESV]

Notice, this specifically implies adequate awareness of and access to the gospel. For those who are informationally BC the redemption operates implicitly on a foreshadowing principle. As I noted previously, Rom 2 gives some food for thought. But to absorb this and many other things we must be inclined to be receptive and to learn and grow step by step, however halting our progress. Rom 2, again, excerpted:

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking1 and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury . . . . 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the [mosaic, scriptural] law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law [--> this is in-built core law attested by conscience etc] to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

kairosfocus

Bornagain @364

Yet, as you yourself just agreed, if the criminal himself is repentant to the victim, it does make sense to forgive a sin (and/or sins). The mother can’t be repentant for her criminal son, only the criminal son can be repentant for his own crimes. Moreover, a truly repentant person would try to make restitution for the crime to the victim as best he could.

So far, we are in full agreement.

The problem for us is that the thief, no matter how repentant he may be, has not the means, nor power, within himself to bear the full price of his crime/sin against God, which is OUR death. i.e. OUR separation from God Who is the source of all life.

But here I have trouble keeping up. What is being introduced here, if I understand you correctly, is the concept of ‘collective sin’. Every human being is guilty of the crime against God, committed by, I suppose, Adam and Eve. But since I do not control their actions I reject all responsibility for them. IOWs I reject the idea that I have been “infected” by their sins, as Querius calls it.

Thus, for the justice to be fully served, and as you yourself agreed, a person, i.e. a thief’ must first be repentant of his crime and then forgiveness by the victim can freely be given to the thief,,,, but still the ‘price’ of the crime must still be paid, and ultimately bore, by someone. i.e. The ‘damage of the crime’ did not just magically float away when the victim forgave the repentant criminal.. Either the thief or the victim must bear the price of the crime and/or the damage that was done by the thief.. Seeing that the thief, if he is truly repentant, would try to make make restitution as best he could to the victim, but that the thief has not the means, nor power, within himself to make full restitution to the victim, the victim himself, in order to make his forgiveness ‘complete’ to the repentant thief, would then be required to bear some, or all, of the price of the crime/sin of the repentant thief upon himself.

You have a point. If you mean that the victim has to cope with the irrestitutable consequences of the crime, then I agree. However, as I said, what I consider to be the true price of sin—repentance (or guilt)—can never be borne by the victim. And neither does it make sense for the victim to bear (part of) the punishment for the crime.

And the price of sin, our crime against God is,, of course, death, i.e. our separation from God Who is the source of all life. That IS the price of the crime that must be paid by someone, either the criminal or the victim, i.e. God, for justice to be fully served.

Jesus had to die because the price had to be paid by someone? If I understand you correctly, that doesn’t make sense to me. The victim obviously should not share the (additional) punishment. If a man’s wife has been killed, and the repentant murderer is, for obvious reasons, not able to offer full restitution, then it does not make sense for the man to share part of the punishment that comes with the price for murder; such as jail time. And again, “our crime against God”, that is the concept of collective sin, does not make sense to me. Origenes

Querius @354

But, I’m sure you know that there are places in the world today where an entire family is arrested for someone’s crime against the state, or hostages get in trouble for the actions of a relative. This might not be acceptable to you, but in places such as North Korea, I understand that it’s considered normative. On what basis can you object to those punishments, which are well-publicized and considered legal and just?

I see a person as a unity who is responsible for his own actions. No one but me bears responsibility for my actions, and since I do not control the actions of others [especially when they lived long before I was born], I do not bear responsibility for the actions of others. [we can have a debate about children].

Also, I previously asked, “For crimes that have a financial penalty, I don’t think that any court would stipulate that the fine cannot be paid by someone other than the perpetrator. Wouldn’t you agree?”

Yes I agree. However, do you agree with me that justice is not satisfied when someone other than the perpetrator pays the fine? Something is clearly off. Origenes

Origenes, you state,

Origenes: "It only makes sense to forgive a sin when a person is repentant. Why? Because repentance is the real price for sin. And only from repentance comes real atonement. Forgiveness is accepting the price for sin." BA77: "And as far as justice is concerned, a Victim choosing to completely forgive the crimes of a repentant thief, (…)" Origenes: "In line with what I just said, this can make perfect sense." BA77: "(…) and bearing the price of the crimes upon himself, (…)" Origenes: "And this does not." BA77: (…) is a different matter entirely than a mother paying for the crimes of her son against another person.(…) Origenes: "No, it is not a different matter. Neither the victim of the crime, nor the mother of the criminal can pay the price for the crimes of the criminal. Again, the price for sin can only be paid by the person who committed the sin."

Yet, as you yourself just agreed, if the criminal himself is repentant to the victim, it does make sense to forgive a sin (and/or sins). The mother can't be repentant for her criminal son, only the criminal son can be repentant for his own crimes. Moreover, a truly repentant person would try to make restitution for the crime to the victim as best he could. The problem for us is that the thief, no matter how repentant he may be, has not the means, nor power, within himself to bear the full price of his crime/sin against God, which is OUR death. i.e. OUR separation from God Who is the source of all life. Thus, for the justice to be fully served, and as you yourself agreed, a person, i.e. a thief' must first be repentant of his crime and then forgiveness by the victim can freely be given to the thief,,,, but still the 'price' of the crime must still be paid, and ultimately bore, by someone. i.e. The 'damage of the crime' did not just magically float away when the victim forgave the repentant criminal.. Either the thief or the victim must bear the price of the crime and/or the damage that was done by the thief.. Seeing that the thief, if he is truly repentant, would try to make make restitution as best he could to the victim, but that the thief has not the means, nor power, within himself to make full restitution to the victim, the victim himself, in order to make his forgiveness 'complete' to the repentant thief, would then be required to bear some, or all, of the price of the crime/sin of the repentant thief upon himself. And the price of sin, our crime against God is,, of course, death, i.e. our separation from God Who is the source of all life. That IS the price of the crime that must be paid by someone, either the criminal or the victim, i.e. God, for justice to be fully served

Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman Luke 7 36 When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them. 39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.” “Tell me, teacher,” he said. 41 “Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[c] and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.” “You have judged correctly,” Jesus said. 44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.” 48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

bornagain77

KF said:

WJM, insistent denial on your part sustained for some months now, does not shift the balance on the merits.

I'm not denying your proposed "First Duties" exist; they may exist. I'm sure I have all kinds of duties under state and federal law that I don't know about. But, if I don't know about them, I cannot be appealing to them. And, if I ask you to show me where those duties are listed, which will provide the information of what authority will hold me responsible and the penalty for not doing my duty, you either do that or you have failed to make your case that I have any such duties. You have failed to make your case that such duties exist. You can appeal to consequences, feelings, "balance of merits" and mind reading all you want. Those things might imply to you that such duties actually exist; they do not imply that to me. All you have to do is answer the questions I have asked which will establish the authority and the consequences necessary for recognition that any such duty exists. William J Murray

Bornagain 77 @353

O: Reasonable debate stops for me when someone suggests that justice is also satisfied when the mother of the thief is incarcerated instead of the thief himself.

But alas, it is not the mother of the thief, but it is the victim of the theft, i.e. God Himself, (and the actual theft was separation of us from God by our sin), is the One who ultimately bore the price of our theft from Him upon himself, (i.e. and the price of the theft from God, i.e. that separation from God by our sin, was death) (…)

For the victim to bear the price of theft upon himself, does not make sense for one simple reason: the price for sin can only be paid by the person who committed the sin. If the sinner does not pay the price for the sin, then the price is not paid at all, since he is the only one who is in the position to pay it. If an innocent man is put to death, instead of the murderer, then no price for the murder has been paid — all that is accomplished is an increase of injustice.

(…) and He chooses to freely forgive us for our sin, i.e. our theft from Him, and bear the price of that theft upon Himself.

To be clear, a sin stems from an informed free choice, as opposed to someone who doesn’t know what he is doing, someone who acts without conscious self-awareness—in a similar way as a ping pong ball bouncing of one’s head while being asleep. The latter is not a sin, at least not in my book. If someone fully endorses his free informed choice, willing to repeat it at any time, and it is a sin, then it makes no sense to forgive him for his sin. It only makes sense to forgive a sin when a person is repentant. Why? Because repentance is the real price for sin. And only from repentance comes real atonement. To forgive is accepting the price for sin.

And as far as justice is concerned, a Victim choosing to completely forgive the crimes of a repentant thief, (…)

In line with what I just said, this can make perfect sense.

(…) and bearing the price of the crimes upon himself, (…)

And this does not.

(…) is a different matter entirely than a mother paying for the crimes of her son against another person.(…)

No, it is not a different matter. Neither the victim of the crime, nor the mother of the criminal can pay the price for the crimes of the criminal. Again, the price for sin can only be paid by the person who committed the sin. Origenes

KF, No duty can be said to exist unless there are the following conditions: (1) an authority that holds you responsible for the fulfillment of your duties, and (2) consequences for doing and/or not doing your duty. Those things are what DEFINE any "duty." They are necessary for a duty to exist or be known to exist. Otherwise, you're just talking about feelings. We cannot help but appeal to logic and reason; that is not the same as appealing to any "duty" to logic and reason. You don't get your duties for free by just magically attaching the word "duty" to our inescapable use of logic. The necessary price of establishing any duty is by revealing or showing the necessary conditions I've listed and asked you for repeatedly. Yet, you will not do it. I think we both know why. Your entire argument will fail if you do so. That's why you have to rely on asserting what I'm implying - mind reading - instead of just pointing out the necessary conditions for the duties you refer to. It's the only way to avoid blowing up your own argument. William J Murray

WJM, insistent denial on your part sustained for some months now, does not shift the balance on the merits. ,your objection implies the duty to warrant credible truth using right reason and is an example that we cannot but appeal to the first duties of reason. This is very similar to and -- duty to right reason -- overlaps with Epictetus on logic. You, too sit on the branch with the rest of us. KF kairosfocus

Querius said:

So, the “indirect preferences” for each child was presumably the same as evidenced by the identical reward stimulus, waiting time, and presumably their ages.

Right. And the children, even at that age, weighed those preferences differently. It appears that most preferred to wait for two marshmallows, some ate tiny bits, one ate most of it, and one immediately ate the marshmallow.

Because what we could believe concerning God is limited only by our imaginations, I’ve chosen to accept as truth the direct revelation by God through the scriptures alone.

Do you mean you've chosen to believe the scriptures are the direct revelation of God? I respect that and don't have a problem with it (your choice,) but the problem is that I'm not familiar with your particular beliefs, so I cannot be arguing against them. I'm arguing against a more commonly expressed and defended form of Christianity. Such as, a perfectly good, all-knowing, all-powerful God created, out of all the possible options, the best possible reality construct for the purpose of reaching a final goal of maximum possible "goodness," and the nature of that construct, as God knew, meant that a lot of people would end up in Hell being tormented forever. Of course, my argument doesn't necessarily cover anyone's particular form of Christianity. I don't know that I've ever met anyone who considers themselves a Christian who believes God created "all possible outcomes."

Jesus as God might give you the same words if you can accept them

My heart is not troubled. William J Murray

KF said:

The first is seen from how even objectors cannot but imply our duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence etc.

When you can make your case without appealing to mind-reading, let us know. I cannot be referring to duties I am utterly unaware of, and for which the necessary conditions for those to duties to exist at all, or be known as such, have not been made apparent. Every time you presume to tell me what my words imply, you're attempting mind reading and refusing correction. What you are doing is making an erroneous inference about what my words mean, and I've corrected you many times. When you refuse correction about what I am implying and insist that your inference is what I am really implying, you're not involved in a debate with anyone other than yourself. You are supplying/imagining aspects to me and my argument that you require for your argument to hold up - over my corrections about what I mean and what I'm implying when I say what I do. Well, anyone can win a debate that way, KF. If I have these so-called "First Duties," then tell me: (1) What is the authority that holds me responsible for the fulfillment of my First Duties? (2) What are the consequences for fulfilling or not fulfilling my duties? Unless those two conditions are met, no "duty" can be said to exist. You have yet to answer those questions. William J Murray

Kairosfocus @355/356, The distinction between your first and second points was once illustrated to me by a friend who spent about 20 years in the most inaccessible part of Papua New Guinea bringing the Gospel to tribe that had recently abandoned their traditional headhunting and cannibalistic practices (they ate only their most brave and worthy opponents). What he told me was in a discussion with their tribal elders, they told him that "now we know why we felt bad even after a big victory" over a neighboring tribe. I agree that trollish posts should be ignored although I'm not always certain whether some posts are meant to troll and waste our time or they are genuine questions. I hope I don't make too many mistakes in this regard. -Q Querius

PS: I note, that this is in effect a significantly distractive side issue that embroils people who often do not have requisite theological, biblical and philosophical background in attempts to answer internet form village atheist rhetoric. And on a forum that is open to accusation oh ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo etc. That is why I strongly insist that we should point out that this is off topic, and that there are places where relevant experts give serious discussion, for those who are genuinely perplexed and not simply playing at trollish games. kairosfocus

Querius, again on a pause. I, for cause, have separated knowledge of core morality per its self-evident nature (i.e. we are morally governed creatures so free, responsible and capable of rationality), from the testimony of sound conscience (an inner witness), from the roots thereof. The first is seen from how even objectors cannot but imply our duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence etc. Where, just neighbour-love, as St Paul noted, implies the duties of the decalogue etc as law has been written on our hearts. The second is a commonplace of experience, though we also have issues of warped conscience, and benumbed etc. Hence, "sound." Which points back to the first. Similarly, it means that things like sins and inherent crimes such as murder are not inventions of priest craft or legal fictions decreed by some power broker or other, but instead are built in law that we inherently know and so we know ourselves to be guilty, guilty, guilty and in need of rescue. In need, too, of the antivenin that cures the fatal venom within. As for the third the logical issue is, which candidate world root best accounts for a world with such morally governed, responsible, significantly free and so too rational creatures. That level being the only place where is and ought can be bridged successfully, post Hume and the guillotine argument. There is just one serious candidate, and objectors only need to offer an alternative that does not reduce to absurdity in some way to overthrow such a claim (but on track record I am not holding my breath: ____). Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. A familiar figure. KF kairosfocus

Origenes @352,

As I said, I don’t understand how it satisfies justice if a man pays the price for another man’s sins. And that *lack of understanding* prevents me from accepting Christianity. Substitionary atonement, the idea that “Jesus died for us”, makes no sense to me. Because to me it is clear as day that the price for sin can only be paid by the person who committed the sin.

Ok, let me clarify my thoughts. The Bible states that “the penalty for sin is death.” We all sin and we all expect to die physically. The Bible says that Adam and Eve were created to be immortal, but as a result of their sin, they would die as a result. Jesus spoke of God’s judgment, our resurrection, and our opportunity to avoid "the second death" through repenting of sins and faith in His atonement.

In most cultures it is accepted as moral and acceptable to have innocent people pay the price for the sins of others? If that is true I was completely unaware of that fact.

I didn’t specify the nature of atonement—there are several to consider. - Historically and in some regions today, people appease the gods in atonement for their killing innocent animals for food. - Human sacrifice was common in ancient times for a variety of purposes—there many examples available in an internet search. - In modern times, suicide bombers kill themselves and innocent bystanders for atonement and rewards in the afterlife.

Reasonable debate stops for me when someone suggests that justice is also satisfied when the mother of the thief is incarcerated instead of the thief himself.

But, I'm sure you know that there are places in the world today where an entire family is arrested for someone’s crime against the state, or hostages get in trouble for the actions of a relative. This might not be acceptable to you, but in places such as North Korea, I understand that it’s considered normative. On what basis can you object to those punishments, which are well-publicized and considered legal and just? Also, I previously asked, “For crimes that have a financial penalty, I don’t think that any court would stipulate that the fine cannot be paid by someone other than the perpetrator. Wouldn’t you agree?” -Q Querius

Origenes states, "Reasonable debate stops for me when someone suggests that justice is also satisfied when the mother of the thief is incarcerated instead of the thief himself." But alas, it is not the mother of the thief, but it is the victim of the theft, i.e. God Himself, (and the actual theft was separation of us from God by our sin), is the One who ultimately bore the price of our theft from Him upon himself, (i.e. and the price of the theft from God, i.e. that separation from God by our sin, was death), and He chooses to freely forgive us for our sin, i.e. our theft from Him, and bear the price of that theft upon Himself. And as far as justice is concerned, a Victim choosing to completely forgive the crimes of a repentant thief, and bearing the price of the crimes upon himself, is a different matter entirely than a mother paying for the crimes of her son against another person. Justice is fully served in the first instance and is, like you pointed out, not fully served in the second instance. As the Psalm's say, "Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight,"

Psalm 51: 1-12 Have mercy on me, O God, according to Your loving devotion; according to Your great compassion, blot out my transgressions. Wash me clean of my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You may be proved right when You speak and blameless when You judge. Surely I was brought forth in iniquity; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. Surely You desire truth in the inmost being; You teach me wisdom in the inmost place. Purify me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones You have crushed rejoice. Hide Your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from Your presence; take not Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and sustain me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will return to You.

bornagain77

Querius @350

Thank you—I think you understand my perspective and I do understand your objection. To me that’s sufficient for the forum and the question of morality and ethics.

To be honest I do not understand your perspective. As I said, I don't understand how it satisfies justice if a man pays the price for another man's sins. And that *lack of understanding* prevents me from accepting Christianity. Substitionary atonement, the idea that "Jesus died for us", makes no sense to me. Because to me it is clear as day that the price for sin can only be paid by the person who committed the sin.

I’d point out again that the concept of substitutionary atonement is endemic to human history. One can argue whether it’s valid or not on some basis, but it does seem to be accepted in most cultures as moral and ethical.

In most cultures it is accepted as moral and acceptable to have innocent people pay the price for the sins of others? If that is true I was completely unaware of that fact.

Also, note that it’s been argued that “penal substitionary incarceation” inferior to simple restitution. In other words, why put a man in jail for stealing $100 from a store when he can be sentenced to restoring the $100 plus a fine? Wouldn’t the shopkeeper prefer to have the $100 restored?

This is all within reasonable debate. Reasonable debate stops for me when someone suggests that justice is also satisfied when the mother of the thief is incarcerated instead of the thief himself. Origenes

William J Murray @346, Your definition of preferences to include "indirect preferences" reminds me of an experiment done on children. Are you familiar with "The Marshmallow Test" for delayed gratification? https://www.thoughtco.com/the-marshmallow-test-4707284 Here's a cuter, more visceral demonstration of the internal conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX_oy9614HQ So, the "indirect preferences" for each child was presumably the same as evidenced by the identical reward stimulus, waiting time, and presumably their ages. But consider the long-term observations about their final choice. Note that it's likely that an American business person would say something about "opportunity cost" and then immediately eat the marshmallow and leave the room. -Q Querius

Origenes @348, Thank you—I think you understand my perspective and I do understand your objection. To me that’s sufficient for the forum and the question of morality and ethics. I’d point out again that the concept of substitutionary atonement is endemic to human history. One can argue whether it’s valid or not on some basis, but it does seem to be accepted in most cultures as moral and ethical. Without reference to any Judeo-Christian beliefs, how would morality and ethics be defined but by what’s culturally acceptable? In Western culture, capital crimes and those specifying incarceration are indeed generally* not “atonable,” but how would you argue that atonement is also morally and ethically wrong for every other culture? Also, note that it's been argued that "penal substitionary incarceation" inferior to simple restitution. In other words, why put a man in jail for stealing $100 from a store when he can be sentenced to restoring the $100 plus a fine? Wouldn't the shopkeeper prefer to have the $100 restored? * There are many examples in the news about murderers being released after atoning for their murder by time spent in prison rather than "a life for a life." This is substitionary in a capital crime. For crimes that have a financial penalty, I don't think that any court would stipulate that the fine cannot be paid by someone other than the perpetrator. Wouldn't you agree? -Q Querius

William J Murray @345,

I’m not an atheist. I’m a theist. I’m not sure you can believe we exist in universal mind and operate entirely within universal mind as local arrangements of mind/consciousness and not be some sort of de facto theist.

I'm sorry for my mistake! Because what we could believe concerning God is limited only by our imaginations, I’ve chosen to accept as truth the direct revelation by God through the scriptures alone. Also, what theologians argue about, I hold very lightly, avoiding speculations derived from the scriptures, but not explicitly stated. Perhaps you can appreciate why I would do so. Have you recently read the first chapter of the Gospel of John to see how closely your Theist beliefs correspond or diverge? It starts out like this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Note that the word “Word” is translated from Logos, which has a much broader meaning in Greek.

My argument is against the Christian perspective of God, not against theism.

My argument is that many popular conceptions of the Christian perception of God is not what the scriptures actually teach. Jesus was the human embodiment of God, and He comforted his disciples with the words

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.” – John 14 (NIV)

Jesus as God might give you the same words if you can accept them. In many cases, it’s appropriate to substitute the word “trust” for “believe” and “faith.” -Q Querius

Querius @ 344

The concept of atonement is pervasive throughout all human history. It appears in Genesis, the first book of the Bible and is mentioned in Revelation, the last book of the Bible. Here’s the argument. If by one human, sin and death entered all humanity, then God can rescue all humanity with the death of also one man, the Messiah Jesus (God himself died for us) and still satisfy justice.

I really don’t get the argument, to me it is total injustice to have an innocent man pay the price for the sin of another man.

… but since we were tricked, God provided humanity with a legal loophole. (...) Here’s what the judge says in this case: “I find you guilty as charged, but I’ve just been informed that someone has paid your fine and I can legally let you go. Please stop driving dangerously.”

Thank you for this explanation, since during our discussion it occurred to me that Christianity puts ‘sin’ in the same category as money. Indeed if someone has been robbed and wants his money back, then he might not care where it comes from. But with sin it is not like that at all. The price for sin can only be paid by the person who committed the sin. Justice is not satisfied when an innocent man is punished for the sin of another. Quite the opposite. Origenes

Kairosfocus @331,

Querius, we are getting into theological speculations and side issues, where many people imagine beyond their depth. We need to know as a balance the point on the informationally BC etc:

Yes, I agree. Regarding morality and ethics, and whether they exist, I answer in the affirmative, but I need to address the requirement for a basis for morality and ethics. That basis cannot simply be cultural or we will be left powerless to object to any accepted version of morality and ethics. Obviously, I contend that this basis is explicitly stated in Torah (the Law), illustrated in the rest of the Tanakh (the so-called "Old Testament"), and fulfilled in the B'rit Hadashah (the New Covenant or "New Testament"). Thank you for your observations and the scriptures you quoted. While I agree that that considerable amateur speculation is likely, I don't think that a scriptural perspective is off the topic of the existence of morality and ethics, without which it seems that morality and ethics would be completely dependent on culture at best and personal at worst. Wouldn't you agree? -Q Querius

Querius asks:

Haven’t you ever done things that weren’t your preferences?

How would I do that, even in theory?

Consider Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane just before being crucified, ““Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

Jesus preferred that God's will be done, not his. I call this an abstract preference; IOW, an abstract preference can take precedence over a direct precedence, like when we don't eat something we'd like to eat because we believe it will probably contribute to a cumulative, eventual condition we will dis-enjoy more than we enjoy eating the food - putting on weight, or contributing to general ill health, or drinking alcohol when you have to drive later. Preferences are not just direct and immediate. Our choices are not just about directly, in-the-now "pleasure," but rather develop as we learn how to manage our preferential choice towards more likely enjoyable states. We all weigh all that - again - according to our individual preferences. William J Murray

Querius asks:

So how can you as an atheist be happy while knowing that some of your loved ones died and are gone for all eternity?

I'm not an atheist. I'm a theist. I'm not sure you can believe we exist in universal mind and operate entirely within universal mind as local arrangements of mind/consciousness and not be some sort of de facto theist.

If we believe in quantum computing, why can’t we believe that God created all possible outcomes at once rather than a single deterministic outcome.

I not only believe all possible outcomes exist, but that all possible experiences and chains of experiences exist. My argument is against the Christian perspective of God, not against theism. William J Murray

Origenes @330

The idea of sacrifice seems to pervade Christianity. But to me the very idea that a person can pay the debt for the sins of others makes no sense.

The concept of atonement is pervasive throughout all human history. It appears in Genesis, the first book of the Bible and is mentioned in Revelation, the last book of the Bible. Here’s the argument. If by one human, sin and death entered all humanity, then God can rescue all humanity with the death of also one man, the Messiah Jesus (God himself died for us) and still satisfy justice.

You don’t put an innocent man to death, because you cannot find the real murderer; even if the innocent man is volunteering. The price for sin, as I see it, can only be paid by the person who commited the sin.

I agree, but . . . According to the Bible, the actual murderer is a powerful spiritual being called Lucifer or Satan. He murdered Eve and Adam, and infected their descendants with sin. God arranged things such that the “Seed of Eve” (i.e. Mary’s Son) would have the honor of crushing Satan’s head. The blood of Jesus acts as our vaccine if we choose to accept it, so we don’t have to perish. The Bible also says that God prepared “the Lake of Fire” (I think of an image of a black hole as the “bottomless pit” mentioned in Revelation or perhaps the surface of the sun) to punish Satan and his angels forever for murdering us, but since we were tricked, God provided humanity with a legal loophole. For example, you can go into a courtroom, where a judge might say, “You have a stack of speeding tickets that are very serious. What do you have to say for yourself?” A. “Your Honor, I’m a good person and I’ve done many good things in my life. Besides, everybody is guilty of speeding sometime, so it’s unfair of you to find me guilty.” What do you think the judge will say? How about this: “Your appearance here is not for all your good deeds, but for this stack of speeding tickets. The speed laws are not unreasonable and are clearly posted. I find you guilty and you must pay the fine.” OR . . . B. “Your Honor, you’re right, and I’m guilty as hell. I’m very sorry for what I’ve done and I throw myself at the mercy of the court.” Here’s what the judge says in this case: “I find you guilty as charged, but I’ve just been informed that someone has paid your fine and I can legally let you go. Please stop driving dangerously.” -Q Querius

Origenes, I think an analogy misfired. As I noted, there are serious discussions but this is not the proper forum. KF kairosfocus

William J Murray @328, These are good questions, but I believe there one’s perspective makes a profound difference in our conclusions.

Our “will” is synonymous with “our preferences,” because every act of will is about preference, either direct or abstract.

Haven’t you ever done things that weren’t your preferences? Consider Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane just before being crucified, ““Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

As I pointed out earlier, our preferences appear to be largely hard-wired things we come into this world with that we discover through our experience.

This is where even secular theorists disagree. Are you familiar with B.F. Skinner?

In essence, God programmed every single choice we make because upon creating and tuning those preferences. God knew exactly where those preferences, arranged and installed by him, would lead us.

I believe God programmed us to truly have an independent Free Will. We’re not meat robots. Some experiments show that we seem to have a “Free Won’t,” a way of rejecting our impulses (see Benjamin Libet, 1983).

If this is the best possible world, then it is the inescapable conclusion that God created those who he knew wouldn’t make it as necessary sacrifices in order to bring about what follows this world.

According to Genesis, this creation is “very good,” but it’s NOT the best possible world. If we believe in quantum computing, why can’t we believe that God created all possible outcomes at once rather than a single deterministic outcome. Quantum mechanics demonstrates non-deterministic outcomes. Einstein recognized this immediately and he objected to Niels Bohr that “God doesn’t play with dice.” Do you know how Niels Bohr answered Einstein?

It’s like a horror movie. How are we supposed to be happy if some of our loved ones don’t make the cut? Does God erase our memory of them? Change how we feel?

So how can you as an atheist be happy while knowing that some of your loved ones died and are gone for all eternity? The Bible says that God Himself will wipe away our tears, and the horrors and atrocities of this world will never come into our remembrance. Have you ever visited a rest home with people who are constantly reliving their memories and disappointments? -Q Querius

WJM spake:

From my perspective, you have to be insane or stupid to believe in this stuff, or just so irrationally afraid of going to hell you’re willing to rationalize anything to avoid it.

Maybe that is because you place infinitely more faith in the infallibility of your temporal perspective, than you do in the Superintellect who created the whole show. You judge on certainly incomplete knowledge, and you hold contempt for that which you could not begin to fully comprehend, from where you are sitting. Yet, with all the hubris your fallen nature can muster, you spout contempt for such an un-understood entity. If that is not an illustration of the folly that is claimed throughout Scripture, which begs the reader incessantly to abandon, I don't know what is. You commit a mouth breather's error of so many, in this country, especially. It goes something like this: "If I can't think of a good reason for X, that means there can't be one." Just because you can't think of a good reason why God designed us and this universe the way he did, that means there can't be one. For someone with a profound gift of your formidable intellect, as you have, especially without higher education, it's sad to see it so brilliant in so many ways, and so completely blind and pedestrian in others. Lean not on your own understanding. AnimatedDust

Sandy, my claim is that the price for sin can only be paid by the person who commited the sin — not by his mother, his father, his wife, his children, his neighbours and so on. Your counter-argument is that mothers are willing to pay the price for sins commited by their children. I did not deny the fact that mothers are like that, but my argument remains that it does not make sense to have mothers pay the price for the sin of their children. The idea doesn't serve justice. In order to show that it does not make sense, I came up with the example of Hitler's mom. Origenes

The fact that a mother is willing to pay the price for the sins of het children, does not tell us that the concept makes any sense.

Ok. I can't help you.

Does it make sense to have Hitler’s mom, even if she is volunteering, to pay the price for the sins of her son?

:) Maybe is something new for you but majority of mothers ( no matter of whom) love their children and sacrifice even their life for them . The exceptions(mothers that abandon ,reject their children) don't cancel the general truth about mothers. What is the logic of inserting Hitler here? You missed the point so big that you came with Hitler's mom? Sandy

Sandy, the priest we need is the one of the Order of Melchizedek discussed in Ep Heb. And yes, there is some knowledge but this is not the forum. KF kairosfocus

Origenes, I am busy with EFT wire transfer details for 2 countries just now but saw your comment. The problem is, sin is like sea cobra venom, fatal. You need the spiritual antivenin and it must come from elsewhere. Much more can be discussed, but as noted this is not the proper forum. KF kairosfocus

Sandy @335

Ask a mother on the street if this idea make sense for her, if she would be ready to give even her life for her children to live and be happy.

The fact that a mother is willing to pay the price for the sins of het children, does not tell us that the concept makes sense. Does it make sense to have Hitler's mom, even if she is volunteering, to pay the price for the sins of her son? Origenes

But my point is that it doesn’t make sense to have someone else pay the price for my sins

Do you have family? If you were orphan and nobody taught you love and mercy you could be understood why "doesn't make sense " for you. Ask a mother on the street if this idea make sense for her, if she would be ready to give even her life for her children to live and be happy. Sandy

Sandy @333

... so if you sin against an Infinite Being how you pay the price?

I don't know. But my point is that it doesn't make sense to have someone else pay the price for my sins —— an idea that seems to pervade Christianity. Origenes

Kairosfocus I strongly suggest, that this is not a topic for amateur speculation and rhetoric but requires thoughtful knowledgeable insight from those with expertise.

So true. You must know something about the subject to say that. :) @Querius: from your comment I understand you don't like The Church of Christ, that one that compiled and preserved the Bible for thousands of years so you can read it and misunderstand it. Flash News: Whitout a priest( that have ordination coming uninterrupted from Apostles) to absolve your confessed sins there is no salvation. But you can't confess your sins without being baptised by a priest that ...you know ...from Apostles. @Origenes: so if you sin against an Infinite Being how you pay the price? Sandy

WJM, your views are yours. The issue is that sin is utterly toxic snake venom and we need antivenin. There is a whole theology of redemption that is not adequately addressed even in brief above and it is most unfortunate that you chose language to deride in terms of insanity. This is not the forum for such a discussion, and there are other places with those of suitable expertise to address such. KF kairosfocus

Querius, we are getting into theological speculations and side issues, where many people imagine betond their depth. We need to know as a balance the point on the informationally BC etc:

Rom 2:6 He [God] will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking[a] and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

This suggests that God is exceedingly gracious to those who respond to the light they have, however stumblingly and haltingly. One has to cross a definite threshold of willful habitual evil that rejects the light one has or should have to be a subject of the just judgement of God. I strongly suggest, that this is not a topic for amateur speculation and rhetoric but requires thoughtful knowledgeable insight from those with expertise. It is also well off topic for this thread and blog. KF kairosfocus

Querius @327 The idea of sacrifice seems to pervade Christianity. But to me the very idea that a person can pay the debt for the sins of others makes no sense. You don't put an innocent man to death, because you cannot find the real murderer; even if the innocent man is volunteering. The price for sin, as I see it, can only be paid by the person who commited the sin. Origenes

Let that sink in: God created this world knowing full well billions would end up in hell, but since it was the best possible arrangement in order to acquire the best possible world after this world with, presumably, the most people making it there, he went ahead and created the billions who were necessary as the sacrifice in order to bring that world about. Jesus didn't pay anywhere near the price billions are going to pay for your eternal heaven because Jesus isn't suffering eternal torment. William J Murray

Querius said:

After all is said and done, our futures are fundamentally a matter of Our Will. Hope this helps.

Our "will" is synonymous with "our preferences," because every act of will is about preference, either direct or abstract. As I pointed out earlier, our preferences appear to be largely hard-wired things we come into this world with that we discover through our experience. Under Christianity, it would be God that created and fine-tuned these innate preferences that are recognizably disparate between individuals even when we are very, very young. In essence, God programmed every single choice we make because upon creating and tuning those preferences. God knew exactly where those preferences, arranged and installed by him, would lead us. If this is the best possible world, then it is the inescapable conclusion that God created those who he knew wouldn't make it as necessary sacrifices in order to bring about what follows this world. It's like a horror movie. How are we supposed to be happy if some of our loved ones don't make the cut? Does God erase our memory of them? Change how we feel? Does everyone who gets into heaven become a sociopath, not even caring about all those who didn't make it? How awful do you have to be, to enjoy heaven when billions didn't make it, and are apparently suffering eternal torment, paying the necessary price for your admission to the glory club? From my perspective, you have to be insane or stupid to believe in this stuff, or just so irrationally afraid of going to hell you're willing to rationalize anything to avoid it. William J Murray

Origenes @324,

Will the vast majority of people go to hell, according to Christianity, or is this idea based on misinterpretation?

"Many" people will perish eternally in "the lake of fire" after the great judgement of God. I'd imagine that it would be a majority, but I don't know how "vast." Currently, about a third of the world is at least nominally Christian. Here's what Jesus showed John at Patmos:

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. - Revelation 7

Here's what Jesus told Martha before raising her brother, Lazarus, from the dead:

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in Me will live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have come to believe that You are the Christ [Messiah in Hebrew], the Son of God, and He who comes into the world.” -John 11

In Matthew 7, Jesus says

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

In John 14, Jesus is quoted as saying

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

So, Jesus says that He is the narrow gate. But God wants as many people as possible to be saved as stated in John 3:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes [or trusts] in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

And for the wealthy, corrupt and abusive religious leaders both then and in the future, Jesus said in Matthew 7:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

And also this . . .

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

- People who choose to trust in their own righteousness (and excuses) will experience perfect justice. - People who confess their selfish, guilty actions, and trust instead in the mercy of God will be shown perfect mercy. - To make mercy available, God wrapped himself in a human body and was tortured to death on your behalf and mine. After all is said and done, our futures are fundamentally a matter of Our Will. Hope this helps. -Q Querius

MNY, we are agents so have subjectivity; that is how we are free enough to be rational and to know. The issue is not that but warrant for knowledge, including moral knowledge; knowledge of what we ought to do. KF kairosfocus

The only chance at getting general agreement on the definitions of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, is to accept the standard of accurately reflecting the rules used in common discourse with subjective and objective statements. I know for a fact that each of you uses different definitions. Yet you pretend you are all in agreement. Your sole agreement is to say what you want to say, and not obey the rules of rational discourse. One obvious problem with the thesis that lack of objective morality leads to catastrophy, is that both communists and nazis asserted objective morality, loosely based on evolution theory. The current vaccin catastrophy, it is all people who invoke science on what we ought to do. I have talked to hundreds of people on the internet about subjectivity. Everyone hates subjectivity. Everyone loves objectivity. Look at how childish people here are, in arguing about subjectivity. I have no doubt about it that the problem is in comprehension and acceptance of subjectivity, not objectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

Querius @322

Personally, I’m convinced that Christianity is widely misinterpreted, misunderstood and misapplied.

Will the vast majority of people go to hell, according to Christianity, or is this idea based on misinterpretation? Origenes

Sandy, notice, the centrality of duty to truth and how opinion, perception, preference, perversity, selective hyperskepticism etc have been piled on to squash it flat in our time? That is a measure of our folly and its end; right over the cliff. A hard collision with reality awaits. KF kairosfocus

William J Murray @318, Thanks for your cogent post. In general, I agree with your observations. Diving a bit deeper, you point out discovery (and subsequent evaluation). There's a lot that comes with our experiences and values, and I'm not a fan of B.F. Skinner in this regard. When one thinks about experiences and values, it becomes quickly apparent how deeply they are influenced by context, attitude, and perspective. While in college, I read and edited the memoirs of a professor. I was surprised to learn that he provided counselling for many of his students. As a result, I saw how some of his students had some very similar tragedies in their lives but the outcomes were vastly different! A lot had to do with attitude, their personal weaknesses, what they valued and prioritized, and ultimately their Will. I could see that the clash of reason, faith, and common sense with Will (or pride or self-justification or ambition) was devastating for some of them! You make some profound observations:

Is an atheist to blame because he prefers atheism to believing in the Christian God? Is anyone to blame because they prefer one line of reasoning to another, one theory derived from evidence over another?

I don't want to get myself mired in philosophy, but I'd rather stick to observations of people in my life. Humans seem to have a strong hunger for value, purpose, justice, fellowship, and eternal meaning to name a few things that transcend "the three behavioral F's: Feeding, Fighting, and Mating" as one prof used to put it or as stated in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (what is "self-actualization," anyway). Personally, I'm convinced that Christianity is widely misinterpreted, misunderstood and misapplied. Have you ever heard this description, "The teachings and sacrifice of Jesus, the Greeks turned into a philosophy, the Romans into a system, the Europeans into a culture, and the Americans into a business"? I think such encrustations need to be scraped off to reveal the truth. Otherwise, people become profoundly unhappy in their prosperity, their religion (or lack thereof), and their relationships with other people. -Q Querius

@Sandy That's total childishness. And Animated Dust also produces nothing but childishness. If I remember correctly, Animated Dust went out on the internet looking for information on me, and then quoted some atheist criticizing me. This is just the same as talking to atheists. No rationality whatsoever. All just bloviating. KF dresses his argumentation up with the respectability of the establishement. But it's all not even trying to accurately refelect common discourse. mohammadnursyamsu

Is an atheist to blame because he prefers atheism to believing in the Christian God? Is anyone to blame because they prefer one line of reasoning to another, one theory derived from evidence over another?

Yes and Yes. Truth is not about preferences.

Mohammadnursyamsu I explain subjectivity and objectivity

First you have to learn about something and THEN you will explain...you can't explain something that you have no clue about. Sandy

I explain subjectivity and objectivity on http://www.creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy It's a wiki. If you can find some error on it, you can correct it. I try to accurately reflect the rules used with subjective statements, and objective statements in common discourse. I don't bloviate some definition of subjectivity and objectivity, fantasizing it, which is what you all do. That is totally disgusting. And basically you all sound like atheists, in your argumentation. mohammadnursyamsu

Querius said:

And our choice is based on our life experiences and our values.

Well, let's explore that idea a bit, eh? There's something that precedes life experiences and values. We can see this when we feed a baby different foods; some make their faces light up with delight; others make them scowl and spit the food out. They are not making a choice to like (or prefer) one food over another; they are discovering that they like one food and find the other unpalatable. These preferences were apparently hard-wired into us from the beginning, because life is really a process of discovering your innate preferences, and then managing those preferences (both direct and abstract) towards, as best we can, our most preferable (enjoyable) outcomes. Yes, we make choices based on experience, but how we experience a thing, in terms of comparable preference, and how any experience affects appears to be due to innate qualities, at least until and if we can train ourselves to change how an experience affects us, or someone else deliberately trains us into experiencing something a different way than we would naturally experience that thing. What are our "values" and where do they come from? Ultimately, are our values not rooted in our preferences, either direct or abstract? Is an atheist to blame because he prefers atheism to believing in the Christian God? Is anyone to blame because they prefer one line of reasoning to another, one theory derived from evidence over another? Are we really supposed to figure this out, even if in contradiction to our innate predilections, in what is, relatively speaking, a very short (and unspecified) amount of time, under duress, in a very confusing and challenging environment? William J Murray

Obeying the rules does not include agreeing with you. You still don't understand subjective and objective in the context you think you do, ostensibly because English is not your mother tongue. You keep beating this dead horse. And I suggest you stop it as well. You're a tiresome boor. AnimatedDust

MNY, projection. I suggest you stop it. KF kairosfocus

JVL @305,

Sorry for my misattribution. I’m sure you mean well and you are sincere, I have no doubt about that. But I’m just not interested in discussing these matter with you if that’s okay.

Of course. As I said

Just something to think about.

-Q Querius

All besides the point, because you have no rational argument in the first place. Because for a rational argument about subjectivity and objectivity, you need to accurately reflect the rules used with subjective statements and objective statements, in common discourse. When you don't even try to do that, then you are just making up stuff. It's got nothing to do with the actual subjectivity and objectivity as it is in common discourse. And probably you are making it up for reasons of moral perfection, is still my best guess. I actually obey the rules, you have to as well. And animated dust, and sandy, and origenes, you all have to obey the rules. If you don't accurately reflect common discourse, then you have a difference between your common discourse understanding, and your intellectual understanding, which leaves you wide open to an accusation of duplicity. mohammadnursyamsu

God can present someone with a choice between A and B, and regardless of which option is chosen, God will judge it as evil. For instance, people high on drugs, they may only be presented with bad options.

Don't use drugs before posting comments...unless you want to sound insanely insane. :))) Sandy

PS: Yes in certain circumstances we face a lesser of evils. In which case the least damaging option is the relative good, consider what police and courts do. That has nothing to do with whether objective truths on right conduct etc exist. It is because of those standards that we recognise a choice of evils. kairosfocus

MNY, apparently you are unaware of the logic and first principles series. Beyond, our error-proneness is a basic in common fact, including moral error. That needs no great research to document beyond say go pick up a good newspaper. Or attend court for a week. Next, yes cultivation of moral soundness including due sensitivity is important. That noted, it remains that there has been a widespread challenge to objectivity of any moral truths. That is, to successful warrant beyond so much of the error proneness we face that we need to accept that there are valid moral truths, truths about right conduct, duty, virtue etc that are generally binding. I have long noted the real case that it is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child on the way home from school. The attempt to deny or obfuscate simply indicates gross moral defectiveness. Similarly, I noted that the attempted denial is actually a truth claim about right conduct etc so is self referential and self-refuting. That there are objective moral truths is actually undeniable. Further, a reflection on Cicero, Epictetus, etc with how we argue, even when we try to object to first duties will rapidly show that the objector too must sit on the same branch, objections implicitly expect to gain persuasive force because we intuitively recognise duties to truth, right reason, prudence including warrant etc. Inescapable and inescapably true. To succeed pose an objection that does not appeal to such duties; consistently (and despite attempts to deny or obfuscate) objectors cannot. Yes we need to build good character and sound conscience -- one of the listed duties! -- we need to love neighbour [ditto] etc, but as part of that we need to recognise that morality contains an intelligible frame or body of knowledge resting on objective first duties. In short, it is non-arbitrary. Further, arguably, it traces to the root of reality, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of our loyalty and reasonable, responsible service that accords with our evident nature. KF kairosfocus

Because you don't have the beginnings of an intellectual justification, because you don't investigate the rules used in common discourse, it must be the case you have some emotional justification for defining things the way you do. You talk about accepting proneness to error. But really you only accept error, because you also accept perfection, by which perfection you identify the error. So the motivation for your conceptual scheme is that it asserts moral perfection. Where in reality God judges, and God can judge either way, good or evil. God can present someone with a choice between A and B, and regardless of which option is chosen, God will judge it as evil. For instance, people high on drugs, they may only be presented with bad options. But also ordinarily, God can judge people evil, regardless of which options they choose, for having bad personal character. Takes some time to build up personal character. But this is all really psychology, and not philosophy. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY & JVL, I note on select points, for record: >>The social darwinists who make morality objective,>> - social darwinism is an anti-morality, a nihilism of power on presumption of evolutionary advantage of favoured races or classes - this has nothing to do with recognising the truth that we are error prone and in all prudence should do diligence that we sucessfully warrant key principles of right conduct, duty, virtue etc. >>must be blown out of the water.>> - social darwinism was discredited with Eugenics and the like, c 1945 >>And that means I am going to blow anyone out of the water with an objective emotionless, calculating and measuring, morality.>> - honest recognition of error proneness and duty to warrant key premises helps to properly train conscience and our felt responses. Our emotions are no better than the quality of underlying perceptions, judgements, premises and principles. >>It continues to be a total outrage that the concept of subjectivity is undermined by the majority of intellectuals>> - you have been repeatedly corrected. We are error-prone, truth and right conscious agents with freedom, but therefore are duty bound to seek soundness. >>your answer that you bloviated without any investigation, is not the correct answer>> - Subjectvity is an aspect of conscious agency, as noted we are error prone but truth and right aware, with freedom. Accordingly, we are duty-bound and the first duties point to soundness in fulfilling duty. - objectivity points to successful warrant to a relevant, feasible degree of credibility as true and reliable, beyond the particular biases, limitations and potential errors of a given individual, group or community etc. KF PS: Cicero spoke to the built-in intelligible law that expresses our morally governed nature. And, anger or rage are notoriously blinding emotions. kairosfocus

Go away MNY. AnimatedDust

Mohammadnursyamsu: The social darwinists who make morality objective, must be blown out of the water. And that means I am going to blow anyone out of the water with an objective emotionless, calculating and measuring, morality. Which says that subjectivity is key? It continues to be a total outrage that the concept of subjectivity is undermined by the majority of intellectuals, both atheist and theist alike. And such an investigation will provide 1 correct answer for the definition of subjectivity and objectivity, and your answer that you bloviated without any investigation, is not the correct answer. JVL

This is all totally stupid. There is no real intellectual argumentation. No real intellectual discourse. You are ignorant about, subjectivity, objectivity, choice, emotions, God. You don't understand anything, nor do you even try to. I have 1 unchanging position that I keep hammering, because I did my homework. This issue is 1 + 1 =2, there is no room for significant variations of opinion on the issue. Subjectivity and objectivity are the same in any language throughout history. You have this kind of consensus, where all of you disagree on the definitions, but agree to support each other's contradictory definitions. A consensus on authority, not consensus on definitions. Where's the criticial understanding? It's gone. The social darwinists who make morality objective, must be blown out of the water. And that means I am going to blow anyone out of the water with an objective emotionless, calculating and measuring, morality. mohammadnursyamsu

Querius: Considering a relationship with God, we also make a choice, but in this case, it’s based on the perspective that we choose. And our choice is based on our life experiences and our values. Sorry for my misattribution. I'm sure you mean well and you are sincere, I have no doubt about that. But I'm just not interested in discussing these matter with you if that's okay. JVL

MNY keeps banging the same drum, ad nauseum. He needs to go away. AnimatedDust

MNY, it stands answered. KF kairosfocus

JVL @291,

Origenes: But in @205, you wrote extensively about your opinions on God’s stupidity and poor parenting:

Yes, but it doesn’t mean I can back up my opinion with scriptural references.

Actually, you meant Querius, and thanks for being honest about it. Here’s the problem. I’m sure you’ve heard many times that success in life depends largely on attitude. I’ve seen the truth of this statement both in academics and in industry: People who choose a “can do” attitude can pick themselves up after many failures and disappointments, and through grim determination, hard work, and a little luck can and do overcome the obstacles. I’m sure you’ve seen many examples of this dynamic as well. It’s demonstrated in many areas of human endeavor: music, sports, art, business, research, and so on. Considering a relationship with God, we also make a choice, but in this case, it’s based on the perspective that we choose. And our choice is based on our life experiences and our values. • For many people, it’s convenient to portray God as fault finding or vindictive, based on popular misinterpretations and ignorance. • For others, it’s a big, theatrical pout against God over life events. • Still others find “God” as simply a collection of “meaningless tradition and pointless ritual,” together with the endless requirement for doing “good deeds.” • Some recognize the disgusting fraud and abuse perpetrated by those religious leaders who have betrayed their trust for power, pleasure, or wealth. • Some people reject moral restraints on their life-long quest for pleasure and entertainment. • And finally, some people are persuaded by eminent authorities that God is simply an unscientific fantasy--an appeal to their intellectual pride. I’ve probably missed some, but none of these hold water if there’s truly a Creator of the universe. Our choice of perspective reveals more about ourselves than the Creator. Just something to think about. -Q Querius

You answer nothing. There is a difference between your use of the words objectivity and subjectivity intellectually, and the rules you use in common discourse with subjective statements, and objective statements, which differnce is duplicity on your part. And what a surprise, not really, subjectivity is the loser in your definitions, and objectivity the winner. You are just the same as a materialist. Intelligent design supporter in name only, like Republican in name only. Because without the inherently subjective agency of a choice, then you have no functional concept of choice. And as choice is the central mechanism of intelligent design, your support for intelligent design is empty. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY, you have been adequately answered. KF kairosfocus

Cicero would only be relevant, if Cicero had tried to accurately reflect the rules used with subjective statements, and objective statements. I basically explode in anger when you try to sell me your bloviating about objectivity and subjectivity, and completely ignore what rules are used in ordinary common discourse. There is one correct way how to deal with this issue, and that is to investigate the rules used in common discourse with subjective statements like, I find this painting beautiful, and objective statements like, there is a camel out the back. And such an investigation will provide 1 correct answer for the definition of subjectivity and objectivity, and your answer that you bloviated without any investigation, is not the correct answer. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY, the true outrage is that you wish to project that acknowledging that in our subjectivity we can err so that we must be prudent in what we claim as true, seeking good warrant, is a denigration of our subjectivity . . . despite repeated correction. Recognising an important truth and acting in prudence on it is not an outrage. If we were joining the likes of a Crick, who tried to reduce our spirit and mind and soul to molecular interactions that would be another story. It is not, the note that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed is a basic recognition of our limits and struggles, requiring due prudence in how we regard our perceptions, passions, opinions, knowledge claims and judgements etc is a simple recognition of truth and wisdom. Where, I note again, that the first Duties, building on Cicero . . . and via Paul, echoing the built in law attested by conscience that challenges our conflicting thoughts . . . are to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so also to fairness and justice. There is nothing in such that would excuse or enable a holocaust or the like, or the abandonment of recognising the spiritual roots of reality. Indeed, Cicero -- a Stoic -- acknowledged God in raising these, however limited his understanding was. KF PS: Cicero, in On the Republic:

, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC

kairosfocus

It continues to be a total outrage that the concept of subjectivity is undermined by the majority of intellectuals, both atheist and theist alike. The people who will not investigate the rules used with subjective statements, or objective statements, in ordinary common discourse, and then define subjectivity and objectivity according to their bloviating authority, are intellectually fraudulent. They use a double meaning of subjectivity and objectivity, The meaning that is used implicitly in the rules used in common discourse, and the meaning that is used intellectually. mohammadnursyamsu

F/N: Notice, each and every time, would-be objectors are forced to have the implicit premise of first duties of reason. That inconvenient pattern of inescapability is a hallmark of first principles, the branch on which we all must sit. Inescapable, so inescapably true and self evident. Where, too, the attempt to state that there are no objective -- successfully warranted, accurate descriptions on right conduct, duty, rights, virtue etc that rise above individual, local perception, preference, group consensus etc -- moral truths, actually makes a failed, self-referential and self refuting truth claim about morality. Just remember, duty to justice, due balance of rights, freedoms and duties and duty to neighbour and to sound conscience are in the mix. There can be no just right to force another to violate sound conscience, e.g. by toeing the politically correct, false colour of law party line through enabling or uttering fashionable lies. KF PS: Not so many years ago, PhD candidates in the USSR were forced to submit a paper in defence of atheism to show that they had the correct scientific attitude. Take that as one slice of a rotten cake. kairosfocus

F/N: Wiki summarises Martin Niemoller's story:

Martin Niemöller was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. [--> Left out, WW1 U-Boat Captain and hero] Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Adolf Hitler's rise to power. But when, after he came to power, Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler [--> They leave out, the Barmen Declaration of 1934, taken as of creedal force in Germany on the Lordship of Christ and the idolatry of political messianism]. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. He was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II.

In short the spiral of silencing took just four years to complete the final "then they came for." There is a reason why we must speak, speak strongly and insistently, even when many will try to beat down, belittle, distract from or dismiss. It is not obvious on the surface, it may not seem to be the most plausible option, but it has this advantage: we know the consequences of the spiral of silencing. Especially, in a day where the objectivity of first moral truths expresses just what ever so many are desperate to evade, universally binding, built in law partly constitutive of our nature. Valid natural law is valid wherever there are creatures having responsible, rational, significant freedom. And truth supported by right reason, prudence and sound conscience is the foundation of justice. I dare say, those who deny a universally binding duty to justice invite ruin. Civilisation level ruin. For generations, our academic, educational, intellectual, jurisprudential and media leaders, voices and influencers have betrayed civilisation. Not, for the first time. So, let us ponder that the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who ignore, neglect or dismiss those lessons doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over and over again. Invisible remnant and lurking audience now and future, please, remember this. KF PS: Neimoller's poem of remembrance and warning, again:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

kairosfocus

Jerry @293 said:

The beat goes on as predicted. And nothing will be accomplished.

And part of that merry-go-round is you complaining about it every third or fourth post. Why not heed your own advice and just ignore such discussions. Mote, neighbors eye, beam, your own eye. William J Murray

The beat goes on as predicted. And nothing will be accomplished. jerry

Jerry, I already asked if { } --> 0 was subjective, being an abstract entity not manifested in the empirical world. Where, von Neumann's construction is highly instructive. The point is, objective is not a synonym for empirically observable but instead has to do with sufficiently successful warrant that credibly, the entity, claim, perception etc in question is not reasonably viewed as unfiltered, liable to bias or delusion etc, is not unduly subject to the likelihood of error. Of course senses such as sight have good reason for us to take seriously, though there are limitations. That such has become controversial speaks volumes about the waning of our civilisation's intellectual life. KF kairosfocus

Origenes: But in @205, you wrote extensively about your opinions on God’s stupidity and poor parenting: Yes, but it doesn't mean I can back up my opinion with scriptural references. And now you claim ignorance on matters of “Biblical interpretation and theology.” Of course, you can fix that by reading the first 2,000 words in Genesis. Then you won’t have to argue from ignorance. I have actually read the whole book; it has been awhile. And I know I am unable to continue my arguments/opinions past my own vague impressions of the garden of Eden story. I don't claim my opinion is valid or should carry any weight. It's just my own personal opinion. Sure, that’s fine. But I did address your objections on God’s supposed stupidity and poor parenting . . Yes, and that's when I realised you wanted to have a different discussion than I am capable of having giving your views the respect they deserve. JVL

JVL @285,

This is becoming a matter for Biblical interpretation and theology. Both of which I know precious little about.

But in @205, you wrote extensively about your opinions on God's stupidity and poor parenting:

Also, I would not say God was evil tempting Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge but seriously, what did ‘he’ expect them to do? They weren’t seasoned adults who had lots of life experiences behind them, they had limited memory of anything really. They had no models of adults around them to help guide them. They didn’t know about life expectancy, death, diseases, etc. They didn’t even know what knowledge was. So, this being puts them in this garden, everything is lovely, lots of food, no dangers, no strife no risks. It begins to sound a bit boring really. WHY would anyone put in a major temptation that would destroy all that? Just to say afterwards: see, you should have listened to me and obeyed me. You’re very naughty and all humans that follow after you are going to suffer because you were stupid? Great parenting. To not even give an example (in a vision or something) of what would happen if they ate of THAT tree . . . that’s just stupid. That’s setting things up for failure. Not good parenting.

And now you claim ignorance on matters of "Biblical interpretation and theology." Of course, you can fix that by reading the first 2,000 words in Genesis. Then you won't have to argue from ignorance.

I’ve had my say regarding the garden of Eve story in my own personal view. I’ll just leave it at that.

Sure, that's fine. But I did address your objections on God's supposed stupidity and poor parenting . . . -Q Querius

@Jerry Your dictionary definitions are worthless, but you have the right idea that the common meaning of the words must be the default definition. That means you must go back to the source of ordinary common discourse, and find out what the rules are for subjective statements, like to say a painting is beautiful, and the rules for objective statements, like to say that there is a camel out back. The dictionaries do not accurately reflect the rules used in common discourse, nor do the dictionaries even try to do that. Your morality about "flourishing" that is basically the same as the scientific morality of flourishing by the atheist Sam Harris. It is just social darwinism v3.0 mohammadnursyamsu

PS: Niemoller:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

kairosfocus

Jerry, the Jews of the late 20's and early 30's in Germany thought silence their best response to Nazi fallacies. The surrounding great powers sought to appease Hitler's grievances. How well did that work out? KF kairosfocus

WJM, again, the rhetorical leverage on your latest objection pivots on the implicit recognition of first duties by those you seek to persuade or counter. I again highlight the negative form to show the point:

Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless.

A community dominated by such patterns will predictably disintegrate in chaos and its members cannot be argued with, they are numb to duties of reason. Such patterns can lead to an advantage of the few. Precisely, because the root of the advantage is that generally we do not act like that. Evil parasites off the good. You have not escaped the ambit of those first duties, nor have you put them in a dubious, dismissable category. Instead, as pointed out you again exemplify what you object to. KF kairosfocus

Jerry: But then some will take that as acquiesce and that they won. As mentioned by Thomas More In his defence . . . according to Robert Bolt that is. JVL

one reason that I’m afraid to delve into debate

I am actually trying to end the debate. Nothing new is being offered. All are repeats of previous threads. If all goes according to history, my attempts will be ignored. This has all happened before and goes in circles as a few have no interest in doing anything other than proving others wrong and must insult them to do so. For what were they inslulted? The person insulted was just espousing what most have accepted for millennia. The person insulted tries to defend themselves by trying to explain and will get insulted for doing so. It goes on and on as if the point of view was not understood when it absolutely clearly understood. The best strategy is when another insults another or provides an inane reply, is to just drop it and not answer. But then some will take that as acquiesce and that they won. Thomas More strategy - TMS jerry

Querius: Oh, but it was. One of the most powerful spiritual beings that God created, among whom he had delegated power, responsibility, and free will became narcissistic, thought he should become equal to God, inserted himself into the story, and corrupted the humans God created in order to gain control of the earth, becoming its god, and desiring worship as God. This is becoming a matter for Biblical interpretation and theology. Both of which I know precious little about. I've had my say regarding the garden of Eve story in my own personal view. I'll just leave it at that. JVL

Jerry @277 and 278, Thank you. However, one reason that I'm afraid to delve into debate on these terms comes from my awareness that philosophers have a rich history of debate and some terms we commonly use have a far different and more nuanced meaning in philosophy. Similarly, there are other terms in common use that have very specialized meanings used by lawyers. To conflate the meanings of certain words irrespective of context leads to intractable debate. In addition, as Kairosfocus mentioned, there are likely more than two categories than just subjective and objective. For example, in a class on logic, I was introduced to Goodman's "grue" paradox: See 5.3 . . .

Now Goodman introduces the predicate “grue”. This predicate applies to all things examined before some future time t just in case they are green but to other things (observed at or after t) just in case they are blue: (DEF1) x is grue =df x is examined before t and green ? x is not so examined and blue

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman/ So, for example, one can make a case for the existence of the "subobjective" based on time. But I won't because it makes me sleepy. (grin) -Q Querius

JVL @266,

Well, the stranger giving them something that I hadn’t decided could be present is not part of the original story.

Oh, but it was. One of the most powerful spiritual beings that God created, among whom he had delegated power, responsibility, and free will became narcissistic, thought he should become equal to God, inserted himself into the story, and corrupted the humans God created in order to gain control of the earth, becoming its god, and desiring worship as God.

What is part of the original story is God, the parent, throwing his kids out for disobeying which I would not do on a first offence. (IF I had a child that after years and years of being rude and abusive was an ongoing threat to the rest of the household . . . well . . . then some tough choices have to be made.).

In the story, the interloper told your kids that by crushing the cherry pits into a powder with a hammer, they could grow up to become adults more quickly. Your kids believed him and became extremely ill. In their weakened condition, they suffered from an opportunistic infection that became persistent, and needed to be treated. It got so bad that they and their offspring needed a blood transfusion. So, Adam and Eve’s mission of transforming the earth to be like the garden of Eden, managing the earth’s ecology, was postponed. Eve, who was the last of God’s initial creations, was told that one of HER offspring (not Adam’s) would have the honor of destroying the serpent.

I no doubt would pursue some kind of legal procedure against such a stranger though, of course.

Exactly. God is in process of judging Satan and the angels who followed him, exposing the results of their actions, and then prepared a place specifically for them called The Lake of Fire.

So, again, I just don’t understand the point of the story from a loving parental point of view.

God granted us free will and independence, and He loved us so much that His only Son came to pay the cost for our atonement--a “blood transfusion”--that will heal us. No doubt you would do that and more to medically save your own children’s lives. Thus, whoever is willing to accept God’s intervention won’t perish. This includes you. -Q Querius

Hilarious. @257, KF attempts to show how he is not attempting mind-reading by doing some mind-reading:

WJM, rhetoric on alleged mind reading — a loaded twist on the issue of implications of what is actually argued — fails. You are still expecting us...

I realize he doesn't know that he is doing it, because he considers it impossible for me to say what I say for any other reason than what his perspective insists it must be. There's no way to penetrate that kind of cognitive bias. William J Murray

Two very desirable ends of human beings are survival and flourishing. What leads to these objectives. (notice a very different use of the word objective.) It turns out that truth is one of those things that usually leads to both. And Cicero's duties are extremely useful for getting at the truth. So Kf is definitely right when he promotes Cicero's duties. They are essential for survival and flourishing but so are some other things. Is it required for everyone to accept Cicero's duties for all to have a better chance of survival and to thrive? No, some can flaunt the duties and pursue other things but the more that adopt these duties, the more likely survival and flourishing will be met. If only a small percentage adopt them, then it is unlikely that either objective with be met. (in past times if some flaunted the duties for survival, they would be dealt with by their surrounding families and community. Now we live in a very disjointed society and it is possible for some to not feel obligated by these duties and remain unaffected by their community.) If one wants to understand what survival and flourishing means, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a good place to start. I am sure someone is already thinking up a time when the truth is not useful for either survival and flourishing. jerry

From the Merriam Webster dictionary objective - based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world subjective - based on feelings or opinions rather than facts; relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind truth - being in accordance with the actual state of affairs fact - something that has actual existence Now if someone here doesn't like these definitions, fine. But realize this how they are ordinarily used. connotation - something suggested by a word or thing; So any word can have several connotations. To discuss something, one should make sure all are using the same connotation. But the previous sentence is anathema to many here as they want to use their own specific connotation to drive the debate. And it is often different from the connotation being used by others. In other words people talk past each other all the time here and in the real world. (no I do not consider UD the real world as UD is limited to about 25 opinionated people. But it is possible to learn a lot here especially about science if one is careful to who they listen to.) Notice it is possible for something subjective to be true and thus objective using the definitions above. Some other definitions: moral - concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior. comment: begs the question of what is right or wrong. By the way there is no singular definition of "right" so what does the above mean? There are several definitions. The one that comes the closest is right - being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper; begs the question of what is good, just and proper. Which leads to considering what are the desired ends of human beings? jerry

The summary below is a repeat as is all the objections here. The title of the OP is about ethics and morality which is a topic debated throughout history. This specifically is from Great Course's lectures on Natural Law.

Ethics is an attempt to systematize and reflect theoretically about questions of morality. Among the standard approaches to the study of ethics, natural law has a distinctive standpoint. A. These are some of the philosophical approaches to morality now prominent: 1. The virtue ethics of Aristotle; 2. The duty ethics of Kant; 3. The utilitarian ethics of Bentham and Mill; 4. The divine command morality in some religious traditions. Natural law theory is another approach to questions of ethics. 1. Here, morality is rooted in “nature” to achieve objectivity: Nature here does not mean “mother nature” or “the great outdoors” or “doing what comes naturally” or “the brute state of nature.” 2. Rather, nature here answers the question “What sort of being is X?” by identifying the structures and abilities to act that belong to the individuals of a given class and not to others. 3. “Universality” is required for ethical claims to be comprehensive. 4. We must test ethical claims for their reasonability to anyone of good will. We must ask: Did a person know and did he really choose this course of action? 5. We must remain mindful of the religious roots of morality by tracing goodness and rightness back to the Creator of human nature. We must be aware of some important objections. A. Relativism - especially in the form of cultural relativism - prefers to see ethics as merely customary and regional rather than normative or universal. In fact, morality comes from the Latin term mores, which means “customs.” B. Subjectivism - particularly in modern life - denies that there are objective moral standards and urges that values need to be embraced and chosen by individuals. We find these ideas in the modern period with Nietzsche and in the ancient period in Plato’s Gorgias. C. Skepticism - considered specifically with regard to morals - offers theoretical objections to the very possibility of knowing universal moral truths. “Universality” is required for ethical claims to be comprehensive. We must test ethical claims for their reasonability to anyone of good will. We must ask: Did a person know and did he really choose this course of action? We must remain mindful of the religious roots of morality by tracing goodness and rightness back to the Creator of human nature.

I am sure some will have objections to the above not because they have a valid justified belief that is better but because they personally do not like what these ideas mean for them. jerry

Origines, I have used the terms responsibly towards a vital end. KF kairosfocus

there is something terribly wrong with how you (and many others) use the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.

Are you including yourself? jerry

Kairofocus, there is something terribly wrong with how you (and many others) use the terms 'subjective' and 'objective'.

KF: I have to focus elsewhere due to life crisis

Please do that, and I wish you the very best. Maybe, after this crisis, you will find the time and the willingness to address this issue head on. Origenes

PPS: Plato:

It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

Where, Luke adds, from a microcosm case:

[On Luke's microcosm on the ship of state, Jan 1, 2013:] Entrenched highly ideological orthodoxies — and this includes successful revolutionaries, whether on institutional or community scale — that control resource flows to their benefit and which exert enormous power in institutions and society [I was speaking here about today's evolutionary materialism dominated science], tend to be very resistant to what is new and unsettling to their comfort zones and interests. Where there has been indoctrination and polarisation, we can see this multiplied by the problem of lack of logical thinking ability and sheer lack of awareness of the true state of the balance of warrant on the merits of facts and evidence. The perceived heretic, then is a threat to be fought off, marginalised, discredited and if necessary destroyed. By any and all means, fair or foul. (I find the obsession with suggestions of a threat of religious subversion of [scientific, political, education, media and cultural] institutions long since subverted by radical secularists slightly amusing but quite sad in the end. The key threat is unaccountable, out of control power in the hands of elites prone to corruption, not that this once happened with religious elites. In the past 100 years, we saw major secularist movements and neopagan movements of political messianism that did much the same to horrific cost. And the welfare state of the past generation has not been a whole lot better. [Just ask the ghosts of the dozens of millions who have been aborted for convenience.]) Where is there a solution? Frankly, at this stage, I think things are going to have to crash so badly and some elites are going to have to be so discredited by the associated spreading failure, that media propaganda tactics cannot cover it up anymore. My model for that comes from one of the red-flag sources that will give some of the objectors [to the design theory movement in science] the vapours. Acts 27. What, how dare you cite that, that . . . that . . . textbook for theocratic tyranny by the ignorant, insane, stupid and/or wicked followers of that bronze age misogynistic homophobic genocidal racist war god! (Do you hear how your agit-prop talking points are enmeshing you in the classic trap of believing your own propaganda?) Let’s start with, Paul of Tarsus, c. AD 59, was not in the Bronze Age but was an appellate prisoner in chains on early Imperial era grain ships having a hard time making way from the Levant and Asia Minor to Rome, in the second case ending up in a bay on Crete. What followed is a classic exercise in the follies of manipulated democracy, a case study that will well repay study in our time.

It was late in the sailing season, and the merchant-owner was worried about his ship in an open bay at Fair Havens, given what winter storms can do. The passengers were not too impressed by the nearby settlements as a wintering place. (Sailing stopped in Autumn and opened back up in Spring. [--> EVERYONE knew why, the ships of that day could not bear up the storms of winter, and as time wore on in the fall, sailing became increasingly dangerous]) The key technico, the kubernete — steersman, more or less like a pilot of an airliner — knew where his bread was buttered, and by whom. In the middle was a Centurion of the elite messenger corps. We are at ship’s council, and Paul, in chains, is suggesting that the suggestion to venture our with a favourable wind to try to make it to a more commodious port down-coast was excessively risky not only to boat but life. The financial and technical talking heads and the appeal of comfort allowed him to be easily marginalised and dismissed. Then we saw a gentle south breeze, that would have allowed a reach down the coast. (The technicos probably knew this could be a precursor to a storm, but were not going to cut across the dominant view. [Let's add, how many days would it have taken to simply WALK to Phoenix, 40 mi away by sea? 3 - 4? We can readily see how the implicit, you won't get money back if you "abandon" the voyage and the rosy description of a smooth, low risk afternoon's sail could easily have swayed opinions.]) They sailed out. Bang, an early winter noreaster hit them and sprang the boat’s timbers (why they tried to hold together with ropes [--> called frapping]) so the ship was in a sinking condition from the beginning. Worse, they were heading for sandbars off the coast of today’s Libya. For two weeks all they could do was use a sea anchor to control drift and try to steer vaguely WNW. Forget, eating. That is when Paul stood forth as a good man in a storm, and encouraged them with a vision from God. By this time, hope was to be shipwrecked on a coast. (Turned out, [probably] north coast of Malta [possibly, east end].) While the ship was at risk of being driven aground and set out four anchors by the stern from midnight on, the sailors tried to abandon the passengers on a ruse, spotted by Paul and/or Luke his travelling companion. By this time, the Centurion knew who to take seriously and the ship’s boat was cut away. He then took the decision to save Paul and refused the soldiers’ request to kill the prisoners to prevent escape (for which their lives would have been forfeit). So, they made it to a beach on Malta, having lost the ship in any case AND nearly their own lives.

Pain, from the foot of the cliff, is an excellent teacher, if one survives and can afford the lesson. kairosfocus

Origenes, partiality and bias dressed up in the lab coat is a material factor in the current, globally mismanaged pandemic. However, in the face of life crisis, I am being reminded of just how hard it is to extract a crooked yardstick, once it has been made into a pseudo-standard of straight and upright. For many in that trap, not even a naturally straight and upright plumb line . . . here, self-evident first truths . . . will be enough. But there is another answer. Pain from a broken back at the foot of a cliff needlessly gone over. KF PS: We should all pause to ponder Plato's parable of the ship of state to understand the suicide of democracy. kairosfocus

On cold words in books https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-724600 >>the remarks I made on inescapability of seven first duties are first a matter of readily confirmed fact: even objectors to such duties, in arguing their objections inescapably appeal to these same duties. In recent days I showed several examples, and your own argument implies the binding nature of the same duties. This is not a religious inference — practically a dirty word in many quarters today — but a readily seen empirically observable pattern, manifest in how we argue or quarrel (as C S Lewis sometimes pointed out). The point is, cold words in books on shelves have no power in themselves, it is the responsiveness of people to the force of duty to truth, to right reason, to prudence, etc which makes people attend to and acknowledge the force of arguments. That is readily observed in how the objections expect those being persuaded to acknowledge and respond to said duties. If someone believes a case turns on falsehood, uses twisted, fallacious, erroneous and imprudent reasoning in service to injustice, s/he will be but little inclined to give it any weight. But if a case is seen as rooted in truth, uses cogent arguments and is prudent towards justice, it will carry weight with responsible persons precisely out of our sense of duty to same, of course augmented by awareness that the former is likely to be dangerous. And so forth.>> kairosfocus

On good vs evil, meaningfulness, first duties etc https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-724209 kairosfocus

@267 It’s telling that Kairosfocus quotes Wiki’s gibberish on ‘objectivity.’ Let’s have a quick look:

wiki: In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination).

Note that Kairosfocus accused me of erecting a strawman and wrote @234:

False! (…) I have nowhere conflated (…) objectivity with truth.

But here it says “objectivity is the concept of truth (…)” And how does Wiki define ‘subjectivity’? Well, subjectivity is “bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination.” Note that Kairosfocus wrote @234:

False! (…) I have nowhere conflated subjectivity with error (...)

Note also that the nonsensical definitions offered by Wiki leave no room whatsoever for the truth of the subjective statement “I exist” — or rather “dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.”

wiki: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

More gibberish.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.

Even more gibberish. Origenes

No, the main systemic problem is rejection of subjectivity at the intellectual level. Growing up in the Netherlands among the more educated, there's generally a sense of emotions being squeezed out. I spent 1 day in middleschool in the USA, on a holiday. I was unprepared for teacher asking to write an essay about what I did this weekend, because my teachers in the Netherlands never asked my personal opinion on anything, in all the years I went to school. So in that USA school it was shown to me that my level of education was maybe 2 years ahead of the US students, but the US students were about 3 years ahead of me in emotional maturity. There is this meanspirited atmosphere typical of the West, where people are obsessed with facts, and subjectivity is discarded. In the USA, this is less because of the constitution, and lively Christianity. But you can see that in the USA, the communists and nazis are predominantly coming from the universities as well. I have discussed this with hundreds of atheists on the internet. And consequently I have the rocksolid evidence that there is widespread rejection of subjectivity among people in general, and among higher educated people in particular. And evolution theory is a big catalyst in the process in education, to undermine and reject subjectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

The objectivity debate point came up https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-724042 Note Wiki at that time: >>In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence. Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1] Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through Subjectivity.[1]>> In short, the pivot is successful, intelligible warrant leading to publicly accessible reason to conclude credible truth and/or reliability. KF kairosfocus

Querius: It was actually a pleasant surprise to see your reply, and a thoughtful, reasonable one in my opinion. You're very welcome. Imagine a vagrant or neighborhood bully crossing your property and telling your children to try something you instructed them not to do or giving them some drugs when you told your kids not to accept anything from a stranger. The damage is done, but you’re certainly going to try to rescue your children and likely want to do great violence against the interloper, right? Hopefully, your kids won’t make friends with him and listen to him again, right? Well, the stranger giving them something that I hadn't decided could be present is not part of the original story. What is part of the original story is God, the parent, throwing his kids out for disobeying which I would not do on a first offence. (IF I had a child that after years and years of being rude and abusive was an ongoing threat to the rest of the household . . . well . . . then some tough choices have to be made.). I no doubt would pursue some kind of legal procedure against such a stranger though, of course. So, again, I just don't understand the point of the story from a loving parental point of view. JVL

Playing games with first duties. Answered https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-723942 And BTW, the whole frame of modern constitutional, rights acknowledging democratic self government was hammered out through precisely these principles. That we have been led to be ignorant of that speaks volumes on our artificial ignorance cultivated by a failing education system and a toxic media culture. KF kairosfocus

The depth of our problem, starting with Pilate's question https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-723890 kairosfocus

What mainly leads to personal and societal catastrophy, is obsession with objectivity, and discarding of subjectivity. Like with social darwinism, nazism and communism. The kind of idea where scientific experts run society, or a scientific ideology runs society. Where there is no common sense subjective judgement anymore, but just calculation based on theory. Then apart from this systematic error of throwing out subjectivity, there are the ordinary errors like lust and greed. All who throw out subjectivity, like materialists, atheists, and the objective morality proponents, must be educated in the basic logic of subjectivity and objectivity, validating each in their own right. mohammadnursyamsu

Answering to, it's all dubious assumptions we can dismiss https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-723772 kairosfocus

PPS: To see the sorts of things that have been deemed questionable on human nature and its moral govt etc start with Jerry's comment here and the exchange that follows, 9 months on https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-723562 kairosfocus

F/N: To illustrate the point on counting on implicit adherence to first duties, let me clip on the negative form:

Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless.

Now, try to imagine a community where, overwhelmingly, such behaviour was the rule. The obvious absurd chaos and insanity that would result shows the point. That is, we are seeing the "evil is a parasite depending on the community as a whole not habitually and predominantly acting like that . . ." principle at work. The first duties SHOULD be uncontroversial. That some find them seemingly utterly objectionable actually tells us something about the sick, suicidal state of our civilisation. KF PS: Do I need to explicitly highlight that untruth and fallacy are the first steps to injustice, that benumbed, broken conscience is a key component of lawlessness, that disrespect for the other is key to it and the like? Yes, duty is not imposing force, we are free. But freedom implies right use of freedom, thence duty. And here is an historically pivotal example, from Locke, Hooker and Plato, with Justinian's juris consults lurking:

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

kairosfocus

JVL @205, It was actually a pleasant surprise to see your reply, and a thoughtful, reasonable one in my opinion.

Assuming the tree was already there (if this was a real risk (i.e. is the amount of hydrogen cyanide lethal?)

Yes, it’s already there as it is in your own yard. The lethality depends on the age of your children and how many cherry pits they crunch on.

I’d avoid planting such a tree when I had very young children) and consider getting rid of an existing one.

As a parent, I’m sure you appreciate the number of hazards to your children—running into the street, poisonous snakes, choking, falling from a tree or second story, drowning, etc. As a parent, I’d guess that one of these or another was once narrowly avoided by your kids, thank God!

If you kept it I think it’s a bit too complicated for young children to tell them they can only eat part of the stuff on the ground but not all.

Exactly. You would give them a simple rule to follow without question at first. When they got older, you would certainly explain to them why. But you’re not being a dictatorial monster. You just want to keep them safe without putting them into straightjackets, right?

Probably better to tell them not to eat the cherries on the ground because they need to be washed in the kitchen first by their parents. Also, I have a cherry tree and never get to eat any of the cherries because the birds get ’em first.

Yep. Or maybe just have them bring you any fruit on the ground for you to qualify, wash, and prepare.

Any sensible parent has to weigh up and consider all the risks they voluntary put or leave in their lives and homes when they have small children. While I don’t think it makes a parent ‘evil’ to warn children about the dangers of eating cherry pits there might be a better solution more likely to ensure danger is avoided. Why not at least find some pictures or stories about people who ingested cherry pits so they can understand things better? And if you can’t find any stories or pictures . . .

I agree. We did a lot of “baby-proofing” in our home—locks on cabinets, outlet shields, locks on doors to the exterior, and so on. We also gave them pretended demonstrations on touching the stove, hot or not, as my mother did with me.

Also, I would not say God was evil tempting Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge but seriously, what did ‘he’ expect them to do? They weren’t seasoned adults who had lots of life experiences behind them, they had limited memory of anything really. They had no models of adults around them to help guide them. They didn’t know about life expectancy, death, diseases, etc. They didn’t even know what knowledge was.

Genesis says that God assumed a form that allowed Him to walk with them every evening. I’d imagine that this involved kind and pleasant conversations and instruction. It also states that a sentient animal called “serpent” (which can mean “cunning” and/or “naked” in Hebrew) was used by Lucifer to deceive Eve and Adam with the promise of enlightenment and to be "like God."

So, this being puts them in this garden, everything is lovely, lots of food, no dangers, no strife no risks. It begins to sound a bit boring really.

They were originally given a mission that sounds a lot like becoming ecologists. Eden was the example and they were to spread over the earth to tame and manage the rest of the earth over time.

WHY would anyone put in a major temptation that would destroy all that? Just to say afterwards: see, you should have listened to me and obeyed me. You’re very naughty and all humans that follow after you are going to suffer because you were stupid? Great parenting. To not even give an example (in a vision or something) of what would happen if they ate of THAT tree . . . that’s just stupid. That’s setting things up for failure. Not good parenting.

Imagine a vagrant or neighborhood bully crossing your property and telling your children to try something you instructed them not to do or giving them some drugs when you told your kids not to accept anything from a stranger. The damage is done, but you’re certainly going to try to rescue your children and likely want to do great violence against the interloper, right? Hopefully, your kids won’t make friends with him and listen to him again, right? So, how did we become “seasoned” adults? I’d say in general by making stupid but non-lethal mistakes. That’s how we learn. How many times did you cut yourself with a small pocket knife or hurt yourself with your dad’s tools even after he showed you how to use them? I have many such memories . . . -Q Querius

WJM, no, the issue is not cognitive blindness or evasion on my part. And notice, your failed armchair psycho analysis is a form of implying that I am failing in duty to right reason, prudence and warrant; thus to truth. Which are of course key first duties of reason. The underlying issue is, we are not dynamic-stochastic computational substrates under the GIGO issue, were we that alleged rationality collapses and our body of claimed knowledge would collapse into oh that's just potentially buggy software and hardware. Instead, to be truly rational, we must be significantly and genuinely free. That implies responsibilities to use freedom aright. Hence, directly, first duties of reason. Rational, responsible freedom, with power of choice, is morally governed, governed by responsibilities towards duty, right conduct, virtue etc. KF kairosfocus

WJM, rhetoric on alleged mind reading -- a loaded twist on the issue of implications of what is actually argued -- fails. You are still expecting us to implicitly understand and acknowledge first duties of reason in your arguments. What would be interesting is why, but as I noted, I have to focus elsewhere due to life crisis. KF kairosfocus

I rarely am critical of Kf’s ideas about the world and his logic. I have been critical about his writing and presentation style and his choice of words and concepts. He is probably the most attacked person here, mainly because his ideas are unpopular with certain people. I often do not know what he means because of his style but when I do understand usually have no problem with what he thinks/believes. I have probably learned more from him than anyone here. But there are some people commenting here who provide nothing of substance and generally obfuscate if anything. jerry

WJM @252 And it is not just us. At @226 Jerry writes very critical about the subjective vs objective concept. Kairosfocus response to Jerry at @242 reads like he did not register what Jerry wrote at all:

Jerry, yes, we are prone to error and every objector here is aware that we need to take care to be correct or credibly so. KF

Origenes

Kf, Murray lives in Texas. jerry

KF asks:

So, where do you live, where does what you eat come from, or the air you breathe etc?

All of that occurs in my experience.

The real world that just hit me with a triple whammy well beyond anything I expected [e.g. my will is now obsolete], is independent of my perceptions and preferences, fears, biases etc.

It's not independent of your experience; it's entirely within your personal experience, and guess what? All personal experience is subjective. All of it.

I am well advised and even duty bound to think about it accurately using methods with a track record of effectiveness, such as logic, scientific observation, good statistics, math etc.

In my experience, a much more effective way of dealing with anything troubling is by using my will and intent to focus on what is enjoyable, including things I can imagine. So far, it has worked well beyond my wildest expectations.

In that context, BTW “no rational statements about something “objective” can ever be made” is a failed attempt at such a statement, self-refers and self-destructs.

More mind-reading.

Thus, it is undeniable that reasoned and reasonable and even accurate statements and chains of such about the objective world are possible and sometimes even actual.

Nope. Can't be done, even in principle, even if it did actually exist.

There is no reification, there is recognition.

Can't be done, even in principle, even if it actually exists.

Including, sometimes very painful and utterly unwelcome ones that have to be faced and dealt with.

All of that is occurring in your personal experience, and cannot be demonstrated to be occurring anywhere else. William J Murray

Origenes @249 said:

Kairosfocus keep pretending that you don’t know what the issue is. Or maybe you really don’t know, and you haven’t read any of my posts.

I don't think he's pretending. He is so certain of his ontology/epistemology that he is completely cognitively blind to other perspectives. No matter how many times I corrected him about my own views, he still characterized my position and argued as if his own views were absolute and governing my words and behavior whether I realized it or not. He's doing that very thing in this thread, writing as if he can read my mind and knows better than me why I say the things I do. Also, he simply won't answer questions that will expose his views as rationally unsupportable; he'll just punt back to his framework of "warrant," which is completely embedded in his particular ontological/epistemological framework, as if that "warrant" has any rational value when assessing a completely different worldview. IOW, KF will not play ball in any field other than his home field and by his rules. William J Murray

KF said @239:

WJM, you just asserted something to be the case, in massively obvious expectation that we acknowledge duties to truth and right reason.

As pointed out so many times before, mind-reading is not a valid rebuttal or argument. Your inference, no matter how "obvious" it is to you, is not my implication. William J Murray

Origines, agents are subjects, that is not an issue. Often our perceptions -- e.g. we see the world and walk around in it are highly credible. That is because we have faculties successfully aimed at truth operating in appropriate macro and local environments, compressing and paraphrasing Plantinga. At the same time our subjective perceptions etc are indisputably prone to error, that is why warrant and resulting objective truth are also important. There has been no need for this side track, we are giving a somewhat elaborated form of things we knew by age seven. The focal matter, that there is sufficient warrant that there are objective truths on right conduct, duty etc has also been addressed. Both, the denial becomes self-refuting and there are inescapable first truths that frame a whole programme of moral understanding, law and sound government etc. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus keep pretending that you don't know what the issue is. Or maybe you really don't know, and you haven't read any of my posts. Whatever the case may be, it's very dissapointing. Origenes

Origines, our error-proneness is precisely why we absolutely need warrant processes to have credible, reliable -- objective -- truth claims. Thus, confident knowledge of objective truth, in Mathematics [note the case of the significance of as non-empirical an entity as possible, the null set], in history, science, morals and more. KF kairosfocus

compared to what? Not a trivial being …. compared to what? Even given “non-trivial immense power,” that doesn’t logically lead to “does not make mistakes.”

One of the more ridiculous statements ever made anywhere not just on this blog. jerry

Kairosfocus @245

We may not like it but the problem of error proneness is real.

Yes it is a huge problem. But that's not at issue. Origenes

Origenes, the point of concern is precisely error proneness and warrant addresses it. We may not like it but the problem of error proneness is real. Indeed the OP is in key part about the commonly pushed idea that those who perceive that there are objective moral truths, are mistaken. Indeed the absolute denial of objective moral truths implies that such objectors hold that those they object to are always mistaken on this matter. As I noted the objection however is self referential and self refuting. KF PS: Is the null set { } an object? Do mathematicians have objective knowledge on it such as in: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . {0,1,2 . . .} --> omega per von Neumann. kairosfocus

JVL, whether you take the Garden of Eden to be mythical history or to be actual history, that does not detract one iota from the fact that you were, in fact, making a theologically based 'argument from evil'. And whether you ever honestly admit it or not, and as I have now clearly shown in post 230, the atheist's 'argument from evil' collapses in on itself since, for their argument to even be coherent to other people in the first place, atheists necessarily have to presuppose some commonly recognized standard of moral perfection that has departed from. In other words, atheists are forced to presuppose the existence of God in order for them to even have a coherent basis from which to argue with other people about the existence of God with their theologically based 'argument from evil'. As Cornelius Van Til put the self-refuting situation for atheists, "As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.”

“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” - Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

And as Dr. Michael Egnor put the self-refuting position of atheists, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question."

The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

Moreover, despite JVL trying to claim that the Garden of Eden is "clearly a fable or an allegory" and "It’s not meant to be taken as an actual event", the fact of the matter is that the Christian Theist has very good reasons to believe that God created humans 'in His image' and therefore also has very good reason for regarding the Garden of Eden to be an actual event. First and foremost, and as I pointed out yesterday, in what a consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, the atheist, in his denial that God really exists as a real person, (the atheist) ends up being forced to deny that he himself exists as a real person. (i.e. he becomes a quote unquote "neuronal illusion" under his materialistic worldview) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/some-at-your-fingertips-stats-on-human-chimp-similarity/#comment-739099 I find it extremely ironic that a 'neuronal illusion' would think himself qualified to differentiate fact from fiction and try to lecture me that the Garden of Eden is to be regarded as "clearly a fable or an allegory". :) Moreover, the supposedly 'scientific' claim from atheists that humans evolved from apes is directly contradicted by several lines of fairly strong empirical evidence. i.e. from the "Fossil Record, to Genetics, to Population Genetics, and also to Human Exceptionalism"

October 2021 - Refutation of Human evolution - Fossil Record, Genetics, Population Genetics, and Human Exceptionalism https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/science-uprising-8-why-materialism-needs-ape-ancestors/#comment-738485

Moreover, (as if that was not more than enough to refute the claim from atheists that we randomly evolved from apes), “Everything that is truly important (about being a human), and that can be said to ‘radically’ differentiate us from all the other creatures on earth, and that truly makes us human and not animals, is immaterial in its foundational essence and character, and therefore it is simply impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever give an adequate account for how humans came about.”,,,

October 2021 - “Everything that is truly important (about being a human), and that can be said to ‘radically’ differentiate us from all the other creatures on earth, and that truly makes us human and not animals, is immaterial in its foundational essence and character, and therefore it is simply impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever give an adequate account for how humans came about.”,,, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/some-at-your-fingertips-stats-on-human-chimp-similarity/#comment-739098

Shoot, recent advances in quantum biology have even gone so far as to provide us with empirical evidence that man possesses a transcendent component to his being, i.e. a 'soul', that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.

Excerpt from post 16: "quantum correlations which somehow arise from outside spacetime, are now found in molecular biology on a massive scale. In every DNA and Protein molecule,,," https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/some-at-your-fingertips-stats-on-human-chimp-similarity/#comment-739135

Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to explain these 'beyond space and time' quantum correlations, whereas Christians readily do have a cause that they can appeal to

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

To say this 'unexpected' scientific evidence from quantum biology contradicts atheistic presuppositions is an understatement. It is a straight refutation of their entire worldview which holds that humans are purely material beings with no transcendent component to their being. Of supplemental note and in regards to the defending the validity of the Bible in general, whereas atheists have been 'twisting in the wind' for several decades now trying to find a purely mathematical theory of everything, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE

Verse:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

bornagain77

@234 Kairosfocus

False, to the point of strawman. I have nowhere conflated subjectivity with error. Nor, objectivity with truth.

I will grant you that for now.

I have pointed out that our perceptions, thoughts, etc are prone to error. A fact we know reliably by age 7. “To err is human.”

Yes, and you have very often used the term “subjective” in that context, but I am going to let that slide for the moment.

In that context, objectivity is tied to having sufficient warrant that, credibly, one has a reliable result in hand, one more likely to be true to the point of being knowledge, at least in the weak sense we typically use. (Warrant is certain beyond correction only in some cases.)

So, objectivity is not to be conflated with truth, but it means “having sufficient warrant” and it is almost certainly true. Call me unimpressed. Sadly you haven’t addressed the following:

Origenes: …. subjective statements depend solely on the subject, and objective statements have warrant independent from the subject.

External to the subject are objects. Warrant that comes from external to the subject, comes from objects. Hence the term OBJECTIVE. When warrant comes from the subject itself, as is the case with “I exist”, it makes no sense whatsoever, zero sense, to call it “objective.”

It turns out that the first duties are inescapable, so inescapably true thus objective.

… thus objective …. What does “thus objective” add to our understanding? Why is “inescapably true” not enough? And what does it even mean? Origenes

Jerry, yes, we are prone to error and every objector here is aware that we need to take care to be correct or credibly so. KF kairosfocus

This is already an out of control discussion. Then KF says something, WJM says something else, OG says something different again. The only correct approach is to try to find the rules in subjective statements, and objective statements, in ordinary common discourse. I am sick of of seeing everyone bloviating their personal point of view on the issue. How subjectivity works is NOT a matter of personal opinion. First you accept the rules of subjectivity as it is in common discourse, then you express personal opinions, according to the rules. mohammadnursyamsu

JVL, I gave the case of much smaller apple seeds, recall how doubling in volume for the same shape requires only 26% increase in line. The family of trees and their fruit, especially stones and seeds, should be treated with respect. The example, BTW is not mine. Guineps is. The seeds are ball like and the flesh is slippery. As a child my dad taught us to crack seeds in half, due to danger of choking on just one seed; he lost a cousin that way. The tree is a favourite and kids love the fruit. I am not about to tell folks chop em down. Similarly, ackees can be quite toxic, but again a favourite in Jamaica, just prepare it the right way. Carrots, potatoes etc can be toxic under certain circumstances too, and more. KF kairosfocus

WJM, you just asserted something to be the case, in massively obvious expectation that we acknowledge duties to truth and right reason. it is actually false, but that is beside the point. KF kairosfocus

WJM:

no rational statements about something “objective” can ever be made, because even “the objective, external world” is a subjective abstraction held entirely in subjective mind. It’s a labeling error where KF and others have reified an abstraction as something other than an abstraction, much in the same way that people reify an abstract model of behavior, like gravity, into an objective cause for that behavior.

So, where do you live, where does what you eat come from, or the air you breathe etc? The real world that just hit me with a triple whammy well beyond anything I expected [e.g. my will is now obsolete], is independent of my perceptions and preferences, fears, biases etc. I am well advised and even duty bound to think about it accurately using methods with a track record of effectiveness, such as logic, scientific observation, good statistics, math etc. In that context, BTW "no rational statements about something “objective” can ever be made" is a failed attempt at such a statement, self-refers and self-destructs. Thus, it is undeniable that reasoned and reasonable and even accurate statements and chains of such about the objective world are possible and sometimes even actual. There is no reification, there is recognition. Including, sometimes very painful and utterly unwelcome ones that have to be faced and dealt with. KF kairosfocus

KF @232 said:

WJM, your denial simply underscores the point, indeed why do you expect me to demonstrate to your satisfaction? Said duties. KF

You're argument here relies on mind-reading, as I've pointed out several times. Not a valid argument. William J Murray

The reasoning @224 fails immediately:

Why? Whoever created this world and it was created was an entity of immense knowledge and power. Such an entity is not a trivial being and does not make mistakes.

Immense knowledge and power ... compared to what? Not a trivial being .... compared to what? Even given "non-trivial immense power," that doesn't logically lead to "does not make mistakes." William J Murray

Kairosfocus: JVL, if you have an apple, peach, nectarine, plum [so, prune too] or bitter almond tree, etc you similarly have toxic seeds. And the fruit of course. IIRC for an apple or the like a dangerous dose is about 50 seeds. Peaches, etc have bigger seeds. Do you buy fresh fruit from those Rose family fruit trees? Right so the whole example was faulty from the beginning: eating a cherry pit or two is unlikely to cause any serious harm. Which is not surprising since there is NO parenting manual in the world that recommends getting rid of such trees. My comments were based on the assumption there might be a risk. But there isn't so it's a non-issue. JVL

Origines, I am on a pause from funeral preparations, that is underlying context. Which becomes material when I note a needless continuation:

The problem arises because of Kairosfocus’ effort to conflate “objective” with “true”, and “subjective” with “error.” Kairosfocus idea seems to be: subjects are error-prone, plagued by delusions and personal prejudices, but once the demand of an independent-from-the-subject-warrant is met, these flaws and errors of the subject are addressed, and the road to truth is open.

False, to the point of strawman. I have nowhere conflated subjectivity with error. Nor, objectivity with truth. I have pointed out that our perceptions, thoughts, etc are prone to error. A fact we know reliably by age 7. "To err is human." In that context, objectivity is tied to having sufficient warrant that, credibly, one has a reliable result in hand, one more likely to be true to the point of being knowledge, at least in the weak sense we typically use. (Warrant is certain beyond correction only in some cases.) It is in that context that claimed truths and perceptions regarding right conduct can be addressed. It turns out that the first duties are inescapable, so inescapably true thus objective. By contrast, the claim there are no objective moral truths is a claim to objective truth on right conduct, refuting itself. KF kairosfocus

Bornagain77: JVL, despite claiming that “I didn’t say anything about evil in general” still complains that what God did in the Garden of Eden was morally wrong. Apparently unbeknownst to JVL, that is a prime and shining example of the theologically based argument from evil that atheists constantly put forth. No, I'm not doing that. What I am doing is pointing out, from my point of view, that the actions of a character in what is clearly a fable or an allegory exhibit what I would consider bad parenting skills and motivations. The story of the garden of Eden reflects the views and opinions of those who came up with the tale in the first place. It says something about the way they thought their deity should behave. It's not meant to be taken as an actual event and commenting on it cannot be considered a serious argument regarding the existence of said deity. JVL

WJM, your denial simply underscores the point, indeed why do you expect me to demonstrate to your satisfaction? Said duties. KF kairosfocus

JVL, if you have an apple, peach, nectarine, plum [so, prune too] or bitter almond tree, etc you similarly have toxic seeds. And the fruit of course. IIRC for an apple or the like a dangerous dose is about 50 seeds. Peaches, etc have bigger seeds. Do you buy fresh fruit from those Rose family fruit trees? KF kairosfocus

JVL, despite claiming that “I didn’t say anything about evil in general” still complains that what God did in the Garden of Eden was morally wrong. Apparently unbeknownst to JVL, that is a prime and shining example of the theologically based argument from evil that atheists constantly put forth. As Klinghoffer put their oft repeated theologically based argument, “atheists have their theology, which is basically: "God, if he existed, wouldn't do it this way (because) if I were God, I wouldn't (do it that way)."

“atheists have their theology, which is basically: "God, if he existed, wouldn't do it this way (because) if I were God, I wouldn't (do it that way)." - David Klinghoffer http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/creationists_th085691.html

In fact, Charles Darwin himself used the theologically based argument from evil, (among many other theologically based arguments), in his book 'Origin", i.e. "10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering."

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

The primary and fatal flaw in the atheist's theologically based 'argument from evil' is that, in order to even be able to communicate to other people the concept of evil in the first place, everyone must have some concept and 'shared awareness' of some objective standard of moral perfection that has been departed from.

“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” - J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide

As C.S. Lewis succinctly put it, "What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis

In other words, if God does not exist, then objective morality cannot possibly exist. Yet the atheist, (apparently unbeknownst to himself), must presuppose the existence of objective morality, (an objective standard of moral perfection that everyone shares and innate and intuitive awareness of), in order for his argument from evil to even have some semblance of being a rational argument to other people. Specifically, the atheist, in his theologically based argument from evil, must presuppose, "There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good."

The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism - 2015 Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,, P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good. P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist. C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist. https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

Yet, "By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.",, thus "even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,"

Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

In short, if good and evil exist, as the atheist must presuppose to be true in his argument from evil, then God necessarily exists:

If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. - The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

Moreover, aside from this very powerful philosophical/theological argument for the existence of God, the Christian can also appeal to the scientific evidence itself in order to further back up his claim that objective morality is a real and tangible part of reality, (and not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds).

Oct. 2021 - In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738586 Oct 2021 Thus in conclusion, the moral argument for God does now indeed have some fairly impressive empirical evidence behind it that satisfies Kant’s criteria of a beyond space and time influence. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738672

bornagain77

William J Murray @215

Under Christian doctrine, the following is inarguable ....

I agree with your argument. I have a weak spot for Christianity, but there are certain things that do not make sense to me. Eternal damnation, for the vast majority of people mind you, being one of them.

To keep this in the domain of adult decisions, and to arbitrarily assign age 18 as the dividing line between child and adult, when I turn 18 I may have a few seconds or 100 years to make that decision.

People go to hell by their own choice, christians argue. But to me it is obvious that only a fully informed decision has true value. Life on earth is clearly confusing to many people. For one thing people are being lied to. I cannot comprehend how a good God can connect eternal consequences to such "decisions" by confused and badly informed people. Origenes

Jerry: The only relationship between the words “objective” and “subjective” is that they both have the same 3 letter ending. Actually, of course, they share the same 8 letters starting with 'b'. Thus endeth the pedantry. JVL

ET: I am saying that all you can do is “argue” from extreme ignorance and prejudice. Do you think Adam and Eve actually existed or not? Just picking holes in other people's statements is just weak; you have to propose alternatives and make a commitment. JVL

The only relationship between the words "objective" and "subjective" is that they both have the same 3 letter ending. To conflate the two as opposites is a logical fallacy of some sort. Especially when zillions of subjective statements are true and are thus objective. Analyze productive, reflective, conservative, respective, alternative etc. What do they have to do with objective? By the way, zillions of subjective statement are not true and thus are not objective. jerry

JVL:

Are you assuming Adam and Eve actually existed?

I am saying that all you can do is "argue" from extreme ignorance and prejudice. ET

Here is the rationale for this being the best of all possible worlds. From 2 1/2 weeks ago. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-reflects-on-the-importance-of-junk-dna-to-francis-collins/#comment-738403

This is the best of all possible worlds Why? Whoever created this world and it was created was an entity of immense knowledge and power. Such an entity is not a trivial being and does not make mistakes. So it was possible to make this world in many different ways. But why would this entity of immense power and knowledge make it one way and not another? Only if there was an objective in making it this particular way. To suggest there was a better world is to suggest that this being of immense knowledge and power didn’t know how to do it. This is an absurd argument so the issue is why/how this world is best? The argument from evil which is often brought up to counter the power and knowledge of the creator is an absurd argument. If supposedly bad things have a purpose and are necessary are they then not bad but necessary? The question is what is the purpose of supposedly bad things? That is the question that must be asked. If one examines the so called bad things, then one is led to the conclusion that everything is bad. They are all relative in how bad they supposedly are. Because eliminating any of the so called bad things just leaves more things that will be judged bad. Which points to that there may be something that is objectively not bad and not relative. But what is it? Aside but relevant. Whenever humans design something it has a purpose, maybe just to amuse us. We don’t design something to frustrate our objective. It’s absurd to think that the entity that designed this world did not have an objective. So with immense knowledge and power it’s absurd to think this entity didn’t get it right.

Nothing about religion except that there is a creator with an objective. Is this a world of perfect imperfects? A world of trade-offs among several imperfects necessary to reach an objective? jerry

Bornagain77: JVL, starts off by stating, “I didn’t say anything about evil in general”, and then JVL proceeds to reiterate his original complaint that God’s actions in the Garden of Eden were “clearly the act of someone who doesn’t love their child.” Why don't you tell us, as a parent, what you would have done? Apparently JVL, since he claims that he is not saying anything about “evil in general”, has no real clue what he is actually talking about. Again, give up the parental insight into the situation. What would you have done in the same circumstances? Let's say you're a parent, you have 'created' two children. You have created a lovely garden for them to live it. It's great! BUT you have included one tree with fruit which, if eaten, destroys the whole environment and condemns the children and all their offspring. First off, why would you do that? But, you figure: I'll warn them. I'll tell them not to eat the fruit from that tree. They're children, they have no experience of the world or a history or of parents or siblings or any real idea of what eternal damnation actually means. But, I'm gonna test them, to see if they're loyal, if they can obey my commands. And, oh dear, they failed. Well, I've got to do what I said I was going to do 'cause otherwise they'd never take me seriously again would they? I created the scenario, I laid down the rules, I made the game I've got to do what I said I would do. That's good then. Happy with that. I'm consistent and honest. Too bad my kids didn't get it. Oh well, they'll learn. Someday. Is that how it works? JVL

JVL, starts off by stating, "I didn’t say anything about evil in general", and then JVL proceeds to reiterate his original complaint that God's actions in the Garden of Eden were "clearly the act of someone who doesn’t love their child." Apparently JVL, since he now claims that he is not saying anything about "evil in general", has no real clue what he is actually talking about. And so it goes. bornagain77

ET: JVL doesn’t have any idea what actually happened. He doesn’t have any idea what they knew or didn’t know. Are you assuming Adam and Eve actually existed? JVL

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is the most important issue in philosophy. And everyone should shut the hell up about it, and solely study the rules used in subjective statements, like to say a painting is beautiful, and objective statements, like that there is a camel out the back. The only correct definition is the accurate reflection of the rules used in subjective statements, and objective statements. These kinds of argumentations, where the definition of subjectivity and objectivity are determined by authority, must be thrown out. What an outrageous arrogance is that. mohammadnursyamsu

William J Murray @210

Let’s go further: all true or false statements are made in subjective mind and are about subjective experiences. Since no one has access to objective experience or thought, all we can be doing is sorting out different kinds of subjective experiences subjectively.

I agree, and I would like add to that “subjectively” doesn’t mean that anything goes. Allow me to clarify. I believe that each one of us, whether one likes it or not, is on an individual road to awareness — enlightenment if you will. Further I believe that those who reach enlightenment will agree on what understanding is, what morality is, what logic is and so on. IOWs I hold that there is a (non-external!) illuminating yardstick, although not clearly within reach.

The “external, objective world” can only ever be an abstraction held within the subjective mind.

When a person talks about the “external, objective world” he can only be talking about an abstraction held within his subjective mind. Indeed. To be clear, this is not to say that there cannot be an external objective (in the sense of existing independently from one’s mind) world. This is to say that we have but one viewpoint, that we cannot escape our personhood—our subjectivity—, we simply cannot be external to ourselves and consequently confirm the existence of this externality in the same way we can confirm “I exist”.

Thus, no rational statements about something “objective” can ever be made, because even “the objective, external world” is a subjective abstraction held entirely in subjective mind.

Granted that we are all subjects, no one has access to an “objective” viewpoint, whatever that means. And, as an aside, this claim “no one has access to an ‘objective’ viewpoint” is not at all “objectively true”, but instead it is just true — no need for modifiers.

“The external, objective world” is a subjective abstract model of behaviors of things we experience in our subjective minds. We can only make statements about subjective experiences, because that is all we have to make statements about.

Well said. Origenes

All of these arguments from extreme ignorance are entertaining. JVL doesn't have any idea what actually happened. He doesn't have any idea what they knew or didn't know. ET

Of semi-related note, although Atheists, in their ‘argument from evil’, often implicitly assume that God should not allow any suffering whatsoever, the fact of the matter is that we all endure suffering for a short while when we are trying to bring about a greater good in our lives. i.e. working for a long term goal, rigorous physical training to be good at a sport, etc.. etc.. I didn't say anything about evil in general or in the case someone else asked me specifically to comment on with my opinion. IF I had a plant or thing in my house or garden that could possibly kill one of my children and I didn't get rid of it and they subsequently died because I thought my verbal injunction against interacting with that thing didn't stop them I would be haunted for the rest of my life. How could I have let that happen? I wouldn't be saying: well, they had free will and they made that choice. I wouldn't be saying: well, hopefully this short-term suffering serves some greater good. All I would think about would be: why was I so negligent? Why did I put my child's life at risk when I could have done something differently? Why was I such a bad parent? I still struggle with decisions like this every day. I want my child to grow up and learn to navigate the world with insight and wisdom. And sometimes I do think: well, they might get burned following their own will but hopefully they will learn from that. But I try really, really hard not to let them get too close to a potentially fatal mistake. And you make different protective decisions based on their age. When they are very, very little you 'child proof' your house as much as possible. You do not depend on them remembering your admonitions or warnings because kids forget. Or are curious. Or don't understand what could be so wrong. You remove fatal temptations where possible and restrict access to those you cannot remove. The idea that I would leave something within easy access that could condemn my child to a life of pain and suffering and all their offspring for thousands of years . . . that's just clearly the act of someone who doesn't love their child. Adam and Eve were children. They didn't know. They didn't understand. They couldn't possibly conceive of what God had in store if they disobeyed. That's the real sad part about the story. They had no history or experience or parental advice to fall back on. They hadn't even bent the rules a little to see just a glimpse of what dangers lay ahead. They weren't given a chance to push the boundaries a bit to test the system. I know, it's just a metaphor but its only point is: obey or suffer. That's pretty sad isn't it? JVL

That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

No the statement above is a ridiculous statement.

This represents the “best possible world,” and I have to take that completely on faith.

No! Logic. jerry

Under Christian doctrine, the following is inarguable: 1. God, obviously without my consent, forced me into a situation of extreme duress (life in this world) where the penalty of not making the decision God wants me to make here is eternal damnation. 2. As part of that extreme duress, I have an unspecified amount of time to make that decision. At any moment before I make that decision I could die and find myself in eternal damnation. 3. To keep this in the domain of adult decisions, and to arbitrarily assign age 18 as the dividing line between child and adult, when I turn 18 I may have a few seconds or 100 years to make that decision. Some people get a few seconds; some get 100 years. 4. This represents the "best possible world," and I have to take that completely on faith. 5. The being that did all this is supremely good. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. William J Murray

I argue that the concept of evil is a bogus concept. No one can define “evil” in a coherent manner though all love to use it. Since it is a bogus concept, it cannot be used to argue against any creator but specifically it cannot be used to argue against the Judeo/Christian God. It just means less than perfect and since everything in this best of all possible worlds is less than perfect by design, it means everything is evil. When everything is evil essentially nothing is evil. To the person with extremely good health, lots of friends and admirers, physically very attractive, a large range of satisfying activities and unlimited income there would still be something missing and the lack of this missing thing would be considered an evil. A large amount of human activity is geared to making everyone in the world like the person described above if this objective is reached, there still would be evil. There have been thousands of comments on this in the last 10 years. This is not the place for another hundred or so. jerry

"As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”

BA77 said:

In short, the atheist’s premise in his ‘argument from evil’, i.e. that God should allow any suffering whatsoever, collapses in on itself.

And:

Likewise, parents will often allow their children to endure suffering for a short time in order to, eventually, bring about a much greater good in their child’s life.

Nope. This is a straw man version of the argument being presented. The atheist is arguing that if the particular, hypothetical supremely "good" God of the Christian doctrine exists, that being's behavior is irreconcilable with that characteristic unless one takes, entirely on faith, that the world that hypothetical God created is the "best possible" world that results in the "best possible" outcome because there's no way for us, as limited humans, to make that assessment. Trying to rationalize that behavior (which includes creating this particular, suffering-laden world) by comparing it to parents who allow minor, impermanent suffering in their children for their own benefit is a completely inappropriate analogy, because those parents are not remotely comparable to God and the result of God allowing us to make those decisions is not minor or impermanent. William J Murray

All opinions have various amounts of evidence to support them ranging from zero evidence to large amounts. The sun will rise tomorrow has large amounts of evidence to support it while the various multiverse concepts have zero evidence to support them. Also logical concepts such as arithmetic and subtraction have something more than evidence. So what’s objective and what’s subjective? Things which are logically true are classified as objective by most people. The opposite is not subjective but some other concept that means lacking evidence and logic. A concept such as “uncertain” is a much better one than “subjective” which has the same ending as “objective” but does not mean the opposite. There may be a better word than “uncertain.” Maybe “specious” is better. Subjective things can be objective. For example, my favorite ice cream is cherry vanilla. Absolutely objective as it is my favorite ice cream. People would call that a subjective experience. So a subjective experience is also an objective experience. Now cherry vanilla is definitely not everyone’s favorite ice cream. That is an objective statement too. In other words the whole discussion about objective/subjective is not objective. jerry

JVL at 205, in regards to the Garden of Eden, states that it was, "Not good parenting." Well JVL, if you object to God's parenting style in the Garden of Eden, then God's parenting style that was displayed in the prodigal son must really have you rolling your eyes.

The Prodigal Son (what you NEED to know about this shocking story) - Jeffery Curtis Poor - April 26, 2021 Excerpt: In Luke 15:12, the young brother goes to his father to demand his portion of the inheritance. An insult and a shocking request. In Jewish culture the older son would get a double portion of the inheritance. So in this case, the older son would get 2/3’s of the inheritance and the younger son would get 1/3. These amounts would have been divided and given out upon the father’s death. In essence, what the younger son is saying is I wish you were dead. He valued the money more than his own father. The audience surely would have gasped and expected a swift judicious beat down coming the son’s way. But the father does something equally shocking, he obliges. He divides up the inherence among BOTH brothers. Not just giving the younger brother what he demanded, but also the older brother. An important detail. The younger son takes his father’s money, grabs his things, and heads off to live “recklessly” as Luke describes it ,,, https://www.rethinknow.org/the_prodigal_son/

And indeed it is very easy to miss God's 'big picture' and take bad parenting tips away from the parable of the prodigal son.

The Prodigal’s Non-Codependent Father - APR 15, 2011 http://bradhambrick.com/the-prodigals-non-codependent-father/

Of semi-related note, although Atheists, in their 'argument from evil', often implicitly assume that God should not allow any suffering whatsoever, the fact of the matter is that we all endure suffering for a short while when we are trying to bring about a greater good in our lives. i.e. working for a long term goal, rigorous physical training to be good at a sport, etc.. etc.. Likewise, parents will often allow their children to endure suffering for a short time in order to, eventually, bring about a much greater good in their child's life. In short, the atheist's premise in his 'argument from evil', i.e. that God should allow any suffering whatsoever, collapses in on itself.

This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God - Jan, 2018 Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good. Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world. In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God. The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all. As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.” http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03/theologian-answer-new-atheists-claims-existence-evil-disproves-gods/

Verse:

— Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

bornagain77

Origenes @208: Well said and well argued. Let's go further: all true or false statements are made in subjective mind and are about subjective experiences. Since no one has access to objective experience or thought, all we can be doing is sorting out different kinds of subjective experiences subjectively. The "external, objective world" can only ever be an abstraction held within the subjective mind. Thus, no rational statements about something "objective" can ever be made, because even "the objective, external world" is a subjective abstraction held entirely in subjective mind. It's a labeling error where KF and others have reified an abstraction as something other than an abstraction, much in the same way that people reify an abstract model of behavior, like gravity, into an objective cause for that behavior. "The external, objective world" is a subjective abstract model of behaviors of things we experience in our subjective minds. We can only make statements about subjective experiences, because that is all we have to make statements about. William J Murray

Origenes said:

Originally, I posed the question to JVL (which of course he hasn’t answered) purposely in parallel with the Tree of Knowledge described in Genesis.

The analogy fails because the father of the child with the cherry tree isn't God. What's the point in warning your children not to eat the fruit off the tree when you know as an absolute certainty they are going to do it anyway? Is it to maintain plausible deniability for your responsibility when the book is written? Would we, as parents, warn our children not to eat the poisonous fruit, and then sit in the lawn chairs and watch as they went to the tree and ate it anyway, thinking, "well, it's their free will decision, I warned them?" I see JVL has said much the same thing. William J Murray

@197 Kairosfocus A general outline of the subjective vs objective concept: subjective statements depend solely on the subject, and objective statements have warrant independent from the subject. In principle I have no problem with this distinction. The problem arises because of Kairosfocus’ effort to conflate “objective” with “true”, and “subjective” with “error.” Kairosfocus idea seems to be: subjects are error-prone, plagued by delusions and personal prejudices, but once the demand of an independent-from-the-subject-warrant is met, these flaws and errors of the subject are addressed, and the road to truth is open. The idea that subjective statements [meaning statements solely dependent on the subject] are false and objective statements [meaning subjective statements with warrant independent from the subject] are true, does not make sense. A (purely) subjective statement can be true or false, and the same goes for “objective statements.” “I exist” is a purely subjective statement. Only the subject can warrant, only the subject has access to, its conscious self-awareness. There is no independent-from-the-subject-warrant, **NO OBJECTIVE WARRANT** for conscious self-awareness. “I exist” is therefore a purely subjective statement … and … undeniably true. But Kairosfocus does not want subjective statements to be true. Instead he wants subjective statements to be error-prone, delusional and what not. Only objective statements are allowed to be true. So, what does he do? He states that the subjective statement “I exist” is an objective statement. Origenes

From the OP:

Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

It's also been the "tradition view worldwide" that an objective physical/material world exists external of individual experience. Science has conclusively disproved that perspective. William J Murray

KF said:

WJM, your attempted objections all, inescapably, appeal to first duties.

Perhaps, but you have yet to show this to be the case. For any duty to exist or be identified as such, there must be two existent and identifiable conditions: (1) an authority that holds one responsible for fulfilling one’s duties, and (2) consequences for both fulfilling and not fulfilling said duty. You have yet to identify either of the conditions necessary for any duty to exist or be identified as such. William J Murray

Querius: So let’s say you have a beautiful Bing cherry tree in your backyard. You love your children, so you tell them that they can freely eat the fruit of the cherry, but they must not chew on the pits because it can make them sick or even die from doing so. This is actually because cherry pits release hydrogen cyanide when chewed. Assuming the tree was already there (if this was a real risk (i.e. is the amount of hydrogen cyanide lethal?) I'd avoid planting such a tree when I had very young children) and consider getting rid of an existing one. If you kept it I think it's a bit too complicated for young children to tell them they can only eat part of the stuff on the ground but not all. Probably better to tell them not to eat the cherries on the ground because they need to be washed in the kitchen first by their parents. Also, I have a cherry tree and never get to eat any of the cherries because the birds get 'em first. But your kids don’t know what hydrogen cyanide is (not having taken chemistry classes at this point), so you warn them not to chew on the stones (or put whole cherries in a blender). Tell me, does that make you an evil dad, demanding that they won’t question you, be curious, or only do what they’re told? Any sensible parent has to weigh up and consider all the risks they voluntary put or leave in their lives and homes when they have small children. While I don't think it makes a parent 'evil' to warn children about the dangers of eating cherry pits there might be a better solution more likely to ensure danger is avoided. Why not at least find some pictures or stories about people who ingested cherry pits so they can understand things better? And if you can't find any stories or pictures . . . Also, I would not say God was evil tempting Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge but seriously, what did 'he' expect them to do? They weren't seasoned adults who had lots of life experiences behind them, they had limited memory of anything really. They had no models of adults around them to help guide them. They didn't know about life expectancy, death, diseases, etc. They didn't even know what knowledge was. So, this being puts them in this garden, everything is lovely, lots of food, no dangers, no strife no risks. It begins to sound a bit boring really. WHY would anyone put in a major temptation that would destroy all that? Just to say afterwards: see, you should have listened to me and obeyed me. You're very naughty and all humans that follow after you are going to suffer because you were stupid? Great parenting. To not even give an example (in a vision or something) of what would happen if they ate of THAT tree . . . that's just stupid. That's setting things up for failure. Not good parenting. JVL

Jerry, I'm sorry, I really should have been more specific as to why. As Kairosfocus noted about our reasonable opinions, there's a role for authoritative warnings beyond what we can bridge with reason. Originally, I posed the question to JVL (which of course he hasn't answered) purposely in parallel with the Tree of Knowledge described in Genesis. Your answer in @202 demonstrates not only what you would do for your kids, but that such trust, beyond reasonableness, also has an important place in our lives. I hope that makes sense. -Q Querius

Jerry, apple seeds also have the same poison. Peach and bitter almonds notoriously. Guinep seeds killed a cousin of my dad by choking, being in a slippery coating and the right size. Ackee is toxic unless properly managed, I think chocolate can be very bad for dogs and a lot more. Medicines are poisons in small doses. There is a valid point to an authoritative ruling that is beyond our understanding but is taken as from trusted source. KF kairosfocus

What I’m really interested in is your response to my question

I haven’t a clue what you want. And why do you want my response? If what you say is true, then such a product should not be sold. And if sold, it would be irresponsible for any person to allow it near their household. And if somehow anyone got near this product, let alone your kids, they should be told it’s poisonous. jerry

Jerry, What I'm really interested in is your response to my question

So let’s say you have a beautiful Bing cherry tree in your backyard. You love your children, so you tell them that they can freely eat the fruit of the cherry, but they must not chew on the pits because it can make them sick or even die from doing so. This is actually because cherry pits release hydrogen cyanide when chewed. But your kids don’t know what hydrogen cyanide is (not having taken chemistry classes at this point), so you warn them not to chew on the stones (or put whole cherries in a blender). Tell me, does that make you an evil dad, demanding that they won’t question you, be curious, or only do what they’re told?

-Q Querius

F/N: How the OP to that thread begins:

Laws of Nature are a key part of the foundation of modern science. This reflects not only natural, law-like regularities such as the Law of Gravitation that promotes the Earth to the heavens (from being the sump of the cosmos) but also the perspective of many founders that they were thinking God’s creative, ordering providential and world-sustaining thoughts after him. The focal topic asks us whether our civil law is effectively an accident of power balances, or else, could it be accountable to a built in law that pivots on first duties coeval with our humanity. The issue becomes pivotal, once we ponder the premise that the typical, “natural” tendency of government is to open or veiled lawless oligarchy

As for what objectivity and subjectivity are about regarding degrees of truth, subjectivity is an individual's or group's experience or perception etc. That may be true but is relatively prone to error so is subject to warrant that allows recognition that a truth claim is credible enough to be taken as known true and reliable to some degree of certainty. Objective truth. Objective attitude is an obvious extension, the frame of mind conducive to sound warrant. Absolute truth is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the material truth on a matter. That's not hard and it makes me a lot less than impressed with arguments that come across as contrived in the teeth of things we all learned by age seven about truth, error, delusion etc, esp. given my current life crisis and its drain on energy. As for the focal point from OP, we have seen inescapable first duties that are about right conduct etc. That suffices to establish that there are objective moral truths. Indeed the attempt to deny objective moral truths is implicitly a claim to be such a truth and refutes itself. Objective moral truths exist and the Ciceronian first duties are key cases that have been historically pivotal for civilisation. Start with duty to neighbour and to right reason. Or, as that OP cites from Locke using Hooker, extended back to the source:

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

KF kairosfocus

From the site on natural law and duties

sure everyone is not using the word “objective” to mean the same thing here.

Using words with different definitions or vague definitions is common on this site. That is an objective truth.

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-725225 jerry

WJM, your attempted objections all, inescapably, appeal to first duties. And, as I have said, I am going through a life crisis [sigh, involving v close triple bereavement], I have little energy for needless exchanges, especially where the matter at stake is as plain as appeals to duty to truth, right reason, warrant etc as key to arguments having rhetorical traction. KF kairosfocus

Origines, perceiving that one exists is a subjective experience, an experience of an agent. That such a perception is warranted to undeniable certainty gives objectivity to the experience of perception; it is sufficiently independent of our error-prone subjectivity that it is credibly "Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real" . . . our existence is antecedent to our mental perception, e.g. consider ourselves asleep or unconscious or in the womb etc . . . and more specifically " Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" i e on a warrant sufficiently free from likelihood of error to be credibly true and not readily doubted or dismissed as delusion etc. Again, contemplate the null set { }. Is there any external empirical entity that is say seen with eyes? No, squiggles represent they are not the set. Is the null set solely subjective? No, it is a core bit of the logic of structure and quantity, a quite central abstract entity; well warranted and quite objective. And trying to gin up a contradiction out of a reference not in dispute while not acknowledging the key issue of having objectivity, warrant, is an error. Pardon directness, but there has been no substantial reason for this side tracked discussion, especially under current life crisis circumstances. We all know we are error prone in perceptions etc, that subjectivity of experience alone is not enough to confer credibility of accuracy to reality and that successful warrant does move us beyond such. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus, Each time I have to discard large parts of your "answers", because they are largely irrelavant to our discussion. The only relavant part here is:

It is warrant that makes objectivity

So, you are saying that when a statement has warrant it is objective. So, "objective" is just another word for "warranted". It follows that, according to you, "I exist" is an objective statement, because, as you said, it is "warranted to self evident certainty" and "It is warrant that makes objectivity." There is a problem with this, and will put it before you for the last time. According to the dictionary "I exist" is subjective, but according to you "I exist" is objective. You cannot both be right, so explain to me why the dictionary is wrong. And after that, explain to me why you spoke so highly of the erronious dictionary when you wrote:

I see MNY is now reduced to trying to suggest AmHD is an arbitrary dictionary. That speaks volumes, reference grade dictionaries are based on tracking informed usage of terms, and here, what it means to be subjective is summarised.

Origenes

KF said:

WJM, appeals to these are manifestly appeals to duties;

Definition of manifestly: " in a way that is clear or obvious to the eye or mind." For any duty to exist or be identified, there must be two existent and identifiable conditions: (1) an authority that holds one responsible for fulfilling one’s duties, and (2) consequences for both fulfilling and not fulfilling said duty. Please point out the (1) and (2) that are "clear or obvious to the eye or mind." If you cannot, you cannot even establish that such duties exist.

... we are free creatures, not programmed substrates or simulations, which cannot be rational. KF

We cannot be free creatures if we are inescapably bound to duties with inescapable consequences. William J Murray

Origenes said:

In essence, the yardstick I use is my vision of what true understanding entails.

The yardstick I use is the one I have the most practical success with in my life when it comes to experiencing that which I prefer. William J Murray

KF said:

And so forth if you are going down the microcosm rabbit hole

You can't avoid the quantum physics problems by trying to quarantine it with the term "microcosm." They've already found quantum effects in the macro world. News Feature: Quantum effects enter the macroworld - https://www.pnas.org/content/116/45/22413 William J Murray

Jerry @183, The better thread to read is this one: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/ethics/lfp44-what-are-self-evident-truths-sets-and-why-do-they-matter/ It clarifies into a question @ comment #99 that, IMO, reveals KF's case for "First Duties" to be devoid of the necessary grounds for claiming any duty exists in the first place, much less anyone being able to identify that duty. William J Murray

Origenes, observe please the pivotal role of warrant. As has long since been highlighted. The perceptions, contemplations and opinions of mind can be warranted sufficiently as to be credibly true and reliable to appropriate degree. The Kantian ugly gulch and claim that we cannot know things as they are is itself a claim to accurately and reliably describe reality as it is and so refutes itself. We may know in part and be prone to error but we can and do know. In the case of self-awareness, to undeniable certainty. Similarly, Mathematics is not a chain of squiggles on paper that happen to be agreed among some circle or other, but the rational contemplation of abstract structure and quantity yielding some of the most reliably warranted -- thus objective -- knowledge there is. It is warrant that makes objectivity; removal of actual or potential flaws and errors, yielding reliable, credibly true results. Take a flawed block of marble, add, Michelangelo; chip away what is not David and voila, a masterpiece appears. Results, that are abstracta, inherently objects of mental contemplation; e.g. start with { } --> 0, the null set -- and yes, there is only one null set, we are symbolising and pointing to a unique abstract entity. It is of course agents who so contemplate, only agents are free enough to be rational and responsible. Moving on to right conduct and duty, we can identify first duties which are inescapable, so inescapably true and self evident, thus objective, reasonably independent of our actual or potential flaws as individuals or circles. The objective needs not be empirical and external to one's mind, it is what results from the refiner's fire of successful warrant and has an appropriate carat rating. KF kairosfocus

KF:

.... self-conscious awareness is an inescapable truth for one in that position and so is necessarily and objectively — warranted to self evident certainty — the case ....

In what sense is self-conscious awareness "objectively" the case? What do you mean by "objectively"? Allow me to repost your own quotation of dictionary:

AmHD: sub·jec·tive (s?b-j?k?t?v) adj. 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: “The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation” (John Hoberman). b. Based on a given person’s experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment. 2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli.

Self-conscious awareness is the ne plus ultra of subjectivity. It doesn't get any more subjective than that. We are dealing with the epitome of subjectivity. So, by what process does this embodiment of subjectivity get to be, as you say, "objectively the case"? Objective in what sense? But I repeat myself ... Origenes

Everyone should have the same understanding that 1+1=2, and everyone should have the same understanding of subjectivity and objectivity also. It is wrong for people to just start asserting how subjectivity and objectivity works, based on some authority. It can be found out how subjectivity works, and how objectivity works, by looking at the rules used with subjective statements, like to say a painting is beautiful, and objective statements like to say, there is a camel out back. There can be no doubt about it what those rules are, and that those rules are creationist. http://www.creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy mohammadnursyamsu

Jerry, Duty:

duty (?dju?t?) n, pl -ties 1. a task or action that a person is bound to perform for moral or legal reasons 2. respect or obedience due to a superior, older persons, etc: filial duty. 3. the force that binds one morally or legally to one's obligations [Collins]

KF kairosfocus

PPS: Note, successful warrant is the point of departure. The result of faculties evidently reliably aimed at truth, operating in an appropriate macro and local environment and delivering a result that supports the conclusion, credibly true. And so forth if you are going down the microcosm rabbit hole which shows that all significant truths are connected in some way so a skeptical questions game naturally ends in dragging in a whole philosophy. Meanwhile, your own comments further exemplify the inescapability of implicit appeals to first duties. kairosfocus

Origines, I really don't have time or energy for a debate, I just note that self-conscious awareness is an inescapable truth for one in that position and so is necessarily and objectively -- warranted to self evident certainty -- the case. One may be deluded about some contents of consciousness but not on the fact of being self aware. Similarly, a rock has no dreams and so it cannot be deluded that it is aware either. KF PS: Noting that this is a distractive side track, I note that others will readily have moral certainty that one is a similar, self-moved, initiating cause agent with consciousness and mind beyond programming. kairosfocus

KF: … delusions are inner experiences of a subject thus subjective.

Sure. “I exist” is also an inner experience of a subject and thus, according to your reasoning, subjective. Now what?

Successful warrant provides good reason to infer not SOLELY subjective, i.e. reliably, credibly an accurate description of states of affairs that obtain, and this is what being objective means.

So, “not SOLELY subjective” is the road to “reliably, credibly an accurate descriptions of states of affairs that obtain”. And that is what objective is. However, I put it before you again, although you will probably ignore it again, “I exist” is “SOLELY” subjective. It is as subjective as things can get. One can picture oneself floating in total emptiness and still conclude “I exist”. So, what is the status of “I exist” in your concept of knowledge? Is it “subjectively true” or “objectively true”? And what does that even mean? Origenes

Origines, delusions are inner experiences of a subject thus subjective. Successful warrant provides good reason to infer not SOLELY subjective, i.e. reliably, credibly an accurate description of states of affairs that obtain, and this is what being objective means. KF PS: I visually imagine a pink, flying elephant, that is a perception of a subject. It is accurate to say I have said perception but of course there is no such animal, it is entirely subjective as an experience. That such an experience can or does occur is a second order matter and it can be objectively true that one perceives the pink flying elephant. The act of perception being the relevant state of affairs subject to warrant. Likewise one may conceive of some mathematical theorem say 4 colour and may warrant it as true. Two different things with the act of conceiving being itself a further state of affairs. More can be unpacked but this is truly a side track. PPS: Yes, as it is manifest from objector's arguments that they cannot but appeal to first duties too. Inescapable so inescapably true and self evident so objectively warranted and objective. Truth about duty and right conduct, so, moral truth. When an objector can object without implying our duties then we can change that estimation. I am not holding my breath. kairosfocus

This has been covered in detail elsewhere. I suggest that any questions on duties be made on those threads. Why not here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/ The term ”duty” or “duties” gets mentioned over a thousand times. Has Smaug been awaken? jerry

William J Murray:

Origenes: There are only subjective statements, some right and some wrong.

Some right and some wrong when compared to what?

Compared to other statements. There are several aspects to consider, one is "completeness", as I have stated before: "A true statement takes all relevant aspects into account." To illustrate this I have offered two examples:

... someone who says “I do not exist”, doesn’t seem to be aware of (does not take into account) the fact that he must exist in order to make the statement. Similarly, as Quierius pointed out, people who have an inflated belief in their victimhood, may not take into account the suffering of others.

In essence, the yardstick I use is my vision of what true understanding entails. Origenes

WJM, appeals to these are manifestly appeals to duties; we are free creatures, not programmed substrates or simulations, which cannot be rational. KF PS: Your attempted objection itself exemplifies how the attempt to rebut itself is unable but to appeal to said first duties. And if inescapable an inescapable, true, first principle. refusal to acknowledge on your part does not constitute failure to have shown the matter on mine, right from the outset. kairosfocus

Origenes said:

There are only subjective statements, some right and some wrong.

Some right and some wrong when compared to what? William J Murray

KF said:

Notice Dillahunty’s implicit, inescapable underlying appeal to duties to truth and right reason, warrant etc? That’s a clue that objectors to first duties find themselves unable to avoid appealing to what they would overthrow.

As I've already extensively demonstrated in various prior threads, KF is conflating necessary appeals to truth and reason with appeals to duties to truth and reason. To date he has refused to make a coherent logical case (or is incapable of so doing) that these "first duties" he refers to objectively exist. William J Murray

KF I don’t know your situation but you will be in my prayers. Stay strong my brother. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus, Again, my sincere best wishes and prayer for you with the assurance of an ultimately positive result at the exit of this tunnel! Kind regards, -Q Querius

Kairosfocus

However experiences, perceptions, beliefs etc are not necessarily accurate to reality or credibly shown to be so; delusions exist, errors exist, deceptions exist, etc. Such, we all know from early childhood, this is not something novel, suspect or in the least controversial.

You keep repeating this, but I agree 100%, as I have made clear several times already. The existence of delusions is not at issue here, [delusions do exist] what is at issue is the question if it makes sense to point to "subjectivity" as their cause, suggesting that their is such a thing as objectivity.

These claims are objectively true.

No, these claims are true. It makes no sense to say "objectively true". "I exist" is true. No need to say "subjectively true" or "objectively true" —— just "true" suffices.

I have little time, energy or inclination to play out needless skeptical debate games, as I am facing a major life crisis ...

Please deal with this major life crisis. I wish you the very best. Origenes

Origenes, all experience is enjoyed by an experience-er, i.e. a subject. However experiences, perceptions, beliefs etc are not necessarily accurate to reality or credibly shown to be so; delusions exist, errors exist, deceptions exist, etc. Such, we all know from early childhood, this is not something novel, suspect or in the least controversial. Therefore, there is a place for a disciplined application of sound reasoning to establish that certain relevant claims are so well warranted as credibly true and reliable that we have done epistemological due diligence successfully and can rightly claim to know such beyond some reasonable [but typically revisable] standard of warrant. These claims are objectively true. Of particular relevance, certain of these claims address right conduct and duty, I have listed the Ciceronian first duties. KF PS: I should note, that I have little time, energy or inclination to play out needless skeptical debate games, as I am facing a major life crisis; literally I am the last man standing from a picture of an important life event of 30 years past. Pardon, therefore, that I am expecting interlocutors to act up to a certain level of reasonable expectations on issues. kairosfocus

Origenes @165,

Kairosfocus, I am sorry but the whole subjective objective project doesn’t make sense to me. The underlying assumption is that there are non-personal statements stemming from a non-personal viewpoint. This is simply not the case. There are only subjective statements, some right and some wrong.

Well stated and I agree regarding non-binary, non-reductionist interpretations of reality, especially since humans enjoy many dimensions. Thus, to reduce them to a single quality is dehumanizing. For example, humans are not merely economic animals. I believe objective truth exists and that we can and should apply principles of objective truth to our everyday lives, but there’s also wisdom involved. If God maintains both justice and mercy, how much more should we do so as well!

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. – Micah 6:8 (NIV)

This is so profound! Justice in our actions, mercy in our priorities, and humility in our relationships. -Q Querius

Kairosfocus, to be clear, are you saying that there are two catagories of statements, namely subjective and objective, and that we can identify a statement as one or the other by ascertaining whether or not it is warranted? Origenes

Origines, we have to be subjects to be able to know but not everything we perceive or believe is knowledge, hence warrant. KF kairosfocus

ET: ONLY heterosexual couples can procreate. How many times do we have to go over that? You mean without medical assistance. What difference does that make? Seriously, you sound more and more homophobic everyday. Unchecked inflation. Laughing stock of the world for the handling of Afghanistan. Unchecked illegal immigration. And a PoTUS who is insane or just demented. Have you checked the US inflation rate compared to other countries? Afghanistan is rarely mentioned on the news these days. Yes people were upset but no one really wanted to stay there. Unchecked illegal immigration? Really? How many illegal immigrants do you think are coming across the Mexican border every day? (Assuming you're not worried about the Canadians.) You think Biden is insane . . . did he push his followers to the point where they tried to take over the capitol building in Washington DC? Did he threaten to put his political opponents in prison? Did he continually try and block access to his tax returns? Did he leave lots of recorded evidence that he considers women things to be taken advantage of? Did he get married three times? Did he have many businesses that failed? Trust me, America is much better thought of in the world since Biden became President. Not that you care what the rest of the world thinks. But you're the one who brought up the laughing-stock perception. JVL

@168 Jerry:

A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes’ intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”).

Many many years ago I thought that everything was doubtable. Cogito hit me like a rock. I remember how stunned I was at the time. I doubt my existence, but I must exist in order to doubt my existence. Therefore I exist. Origenes

JVL:

Lots of heterosexual couples are unable to procreate.

ONLY heterosexual couples can procreate. How many times do we have to go over that?

Just a bit paranoid are we?

Just a bit stupid and ignorant are you?

And what price is that pray tell?

Unchecked inflation. Laughing stock of the world for the handling of Afghanistan. Unchecked illegal immigration. And a PoTUS who is insane or just demented. ET

We all have opinions. Some claim my opinions are just as good as yours. But in truth some opinion are more justified than others. That the sun will rise tomorrow is more justified than a week from Tuesday will be sunny. That there is a creator is more justified than there is no creator. There is evidence and logic for that. That there is a creator is more justified than the creator is the Judeo/Christian God. It’s all relative. Maybe better than objective/subjective is more justified vs less justified. Then there is the premise that it is meant to be this way. Always some uncertainty, often a lot of uncertainty and almost never that something is absolute certainty. For the latter some have questioned “Cogito, ergo sum.”

A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes' intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am").The dictum is also sometimes referred to as the cogito

jerry

@166 Kairosfocus

... it is about warrant vs proneness to error.

"I exist", as you have pointed out many times in the past, is a self-evident truth. IOWs the statement has no warrant issues whatsoever. However, according to the dictionary you cited, we are dealing with the ne plus ultra of subjective statements. So, please explain to me how this whole subjective vs objective concept is about warrant vs proness to error? Origenes

Origenes, no, it is about warrant vs proneness to error. No serious person denies individuality and conscious experience. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus, I am sorry but the whole subjective objective project doesn't make sense to me. The underlying assumption is that there are non-personal statements stemming from a non-personal viewpoint. This is simply not the case. There are only subjective statements, some right and some wrong. And IMHO right and wrong has to do with 'awareness', completeness and coherence, as opposed to some meassurement of 'objectivity'. For instance someone who says "I do not exist", doesn't seem to be aware of (does not take into account) the fact that he must exist in order to make the statement. Similarly, as Quierius pointed out, people who have an inflated belief in their victimhood, may not take into account the suffering of others. A true statement takes all relevant aspects into account. Origenes

Origines, take it as suggesting proneness to error so steps need to be taken to provide credible warrant. Where, it is easily seen starting from big red X's in early school days, that error proneness is objectively so. BTW, that is why I used green ink when I was a teacher! KF kairosfocus

@ 158 —Q I would like to make sure that I understand the difference between objective and subjective statements. Some questions for you.

Q: Yet our awareness is similarly tainted.

Is your statement above objective or subjective? Are all subjective statements tainted? Is "I exist" a tainted statement? If so, what does that mean? Origenes

The point is that both subjectivity and objectivity are logical. It can be discovered how they function, by looking at the logic used with opinions and facts in common discourse. Then you obtain the correct defintion of them. And the correct definitions are the creationist definitions, and all other definitions are wrong. A subjective opinion is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. An objective fact is a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation in the mind, forced by the evidence of it. That way explaining the underlying logic in statements of opinion, like saying a painting is beautiful, and statements of fact, like saying there is a camel out the back. mohammadnursyamsu

Q: why do so many feel free to assault the first principles of civliisation and thought nowadays, without embarrassment? What does this say about where we are? KF PS: I again cite St Paul:

Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,6 which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor . . . [ESV]

kairosfocus

F/N: I see MNY is now reduced to trying to suggest AmHD is an arbitrary dictionary. That speaks volumes, reference grade dictionaries are based on tracking informed usage of terms, and here, what it means to be subjective is summarised. Similarly, the reference to the self-moved agent who is a first cause is from Plato in The laws Bk X, where he goes on to identify this with life and soul. These are anything but arbitrary usages, and serve to correct idiosyncratic arguments. KF PS: As for objective, here is the surprisingly good Collins English Dictionary:

adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?. 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc 4. (Medicine) med (of disease symptoms) perceptible to persons other than the individual affected

The point is, for matters of right conduct and duty, truth, knowledge, prudence, justice etc, we are known to be finite, fallible [= prone to error], morally struggling, too often ill-willed and stubborn, etc. Therefore, in all prudence, we need to identify key first principles or truths, that are reliably warranted and so are known to be true. Truths about right conduct and duty, i.e. morality, are clearly involved here. KF kairosfocus

Q, actually, the first principles of right reason are "in de list," and both were and are controversial for many indoctrinated in relativistic thinking. Distinct identity and its corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle. I have often enough put up Epictetus on the inescapability of core logic, thus its branch we all sit on character:

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]

Then, there is St Paul, to devastating effect:

1 Cor 14: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]

If someone want to appeal to quantum state superposition etc to dismiss this, I suggest the objector looks at the weak argument corrective no 38. We are looking at a general assault on basic responsible reason, prudence, truth, warranted but inconvenient knowledge, fair play and justice, not to mention beauty. KF kairosfocus

Origenes @157,

The only way out of darkness is by increasing one’s awareness.

Yet our awareness is similarly tainted. We need something external to ourselves. Let me suggest the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of our wrongdoing and leads us to the light of truth. -Q Querius

Querius:

Then, the result of that collision might be manifested as a belief in their victimhood, their imagined genius, self importance, anger at God, or some other psychological pathology.

But then again there is no escape from personhood. Not one of us can transcend his personhood, his subjectivity, and reach a state of mind from which he can have "objective" experiences and make "objective" statements. The only way out of darkness is by increasing one's awareness. Origenes

Origenes @155,

. . . since subjective statements, as Kairosfocus lays out, are considered to be less trustworthy in comparison to objective statements. Subjectivity is “prone to errors” and what not.

Yes, especially when a person's fantasies crash into reality. Even then, our perceptions are highly dependent on personal context. Then, the result of that collision might be manifested as a belief in their victimhood, their imagined genius, self importance, anger at God, or some other psychological pathology. I'm reminded of some of the characters in C.S. Lewis's book, The Great Divorce. Of course they all thought they were right and suffered unjustly. -Q Querius

@151 KF Two questions:

1 –> the issue at stake is the credible existence of objective, so, well warranted, moral truths, where it is noted that our individual and group perceptions are prone to errors.

Is, for the same reasons, the existence of “objective logical truths” equally credible?

sub·jec·tive (s?b-j?k?t?v) adj. 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world (...)

If subjective means “dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world”, then clearly “I exist” and “I think therefore I exist” are (highly) subjective statements. Which is noteworthy, since subjective statements, as Kairosfocus lays out, are considered to be less trustworthy in comparison to objective statements. Subjectivity is “prone to errors” and what not. Origenes

Kairosfocus @151, Nicely summarized. I'd also note that the person who gets to frame an argument in their own terms has already won, which is why I reject binary philosophical classifications. What follows them are pointless and endless arguments. -Q Querius

Subjectivity can be seen as? Quoting some arbitrary dictionary, quoting an arbitrary invidual John Hoberman? 1+1=2. Subjectivity is that a personal opinion is chosen, and that a personal opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice. Any other definition of it is wrong. Although the definition could be improved on in the details. The definition means that the subjective part of reality, is the part of reality that makes choices. It also means the subjective part of reality, creates the objective part of reallity, because choice is the mechanism of creation. mohammadnursyamsu

ET @148, While it's obvious to many people that our culture is collapsing due to moral corruption in all our institutions, there's no shortage of people who will argue about it all the way down. And when their pointless argumentation fails, the next step is legal coercion, and the next is simply force. It's all happened before, which is why our leaders feel that it's essential to erase our knowledge of history. Less embarrassing that way. -Q Querius

F/N: I observe a suspicious switch of terms or two, so I note for record, MNY having refused to be simply civil:

he proof that objective morality is nothing but corruption, is that your understanding of subjectivity is wrong

For the record: 1 --> the issue at stake is the credible existence of objective, so, well warranted, moral truths, where it is noted that our individual and group perceptions are prone to errors. 2 --> therefore as a matter of prudence we should do due diligence to truth on the subject of morality, involving right reason and sound warrant. 3 --> where, morality is the study, practice and substance of right conduct, i.e. of fulfillment of the prime duties of responsible, rational, significantly free, self-moved agents. 4 --> such duties having been identified as involving the Ciceronian first duties of reason, which are inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident and well warranted thus constitute objective, known moral truths. These guide and guard, they do not force compliance. 5 --> namely, duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice, etc. It being known that these first principles can be elaborated in analysis and identification of codes, including the Decalogue, and onward sound civil law. 6 --> This was historically done and played key parts in developing major reforms of genuine liberation. 7 --> In that context, subjectivity can be seen as the substance of conscious experiences of an agent of this order such as we are. 8 --> AmHD:

sub·jec·tive (s?b-j?k?t?v) adj. 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman). b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment. 2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli. 3. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or complaint perceived by a patient. 4. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.

9 --> Where, such, as noted, can be error prone leading to concerns about objective moral truths. As was already addressed in outline. 10 --> As a note on the other side of axiology, beauty prompts an intuitive response of aesthetic appreciation and is demonstrably subject to intelligible principles of skilled composition. Though, our senses can be warped or dulled here, too. See London's spoiled skyline. KF kairosfocus

ET:When same sex couples can procreate with their chosen partner they can have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Lots of heterosexual couples are unable to procreate. Would you care to rethink your criteria? It is all just a scheme to undermine society. Just a bit paranoid are we? Heck, some 84 million complete imbeciles voted for Joe Biden. And now the USA is paying a big price for their stupidity. And what price is that pray tell? JVL

@querius The proof that objective morality is nothing but corruption, is that your understanding of subjectivity is wrong. It is not some kind of coincedence that you support objective morality, and are also clueless about subjectivity. There is only 1 correct answer to the question of how subjectivity works. Your answer is wrong. Which means your ideas about love, emotions in general, personal character, God, choices, must therefore also be wrong. mohammadnursyamsu

JVL:

Sounds like a good argument for gay marriage to me.

Anything sounds like a good argument for gay, ie same sex, marriage to you. You don't need marriage to love someone.

In the sense that loving your neighbour means supporting and standing up for him, treating him with respect and dignity, giving him the same civil rights as you.

When same sex couples can procreate with their chosen partner they can have the same rights as heterosexual couples. The ONLY reason for the same-sex marriage push is because insurance companies refused to allow same sex partners the same coverage as married heterosexual couples. All other alleged benefits are available to unmarried same sex couples. It is all just a scheme to undermine society. And it's working. Heck, some 84 million complete imbeciles voted for Joe Biden. And now the USA is paying a big price for their stupidity. They are pretty much the same people who support same sex marriage. ET

PS: A reminder. First duties of reason as core, built-in law of our morally governed nature:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,

1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.

Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

kairosfocus

JVL, there is no need to entertain fashionable colour of law hobby horses, save to note that intelligible natural law is of universal jurisdiction and marriage is literally written into our XX and XY genes. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Sounds like a good argument for gay marriage to me. In the sense that loving your neighbour means supporting and standing up for him, treating him with respect and dignity, giving him the same civil rights as you. JVL

Mohammadnursyamsu @133, Have you ever heard the saying that all True-False questions on exams are ultimately false? Try it out. True/False: The sky is blue. True/False: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. and so on. In courts of law, prosecutors often try to trap the accused or witnesses with questions such as "Yes or no, have you ever contemplated . . . " leading them down a yes/no path that destroys their credibility. How much more can one get misled by trying to fit everything into exactly two categories, which themselves are subject to interpretation and controversy? That's all I'm going to say on the subject. -Q Querius

PS: I suspect MNY does not recognise that the concept of an intelligible built in law of our nature witnessed by conscience and acknowledged by sound states long predates Darwin et al and has often been understood as laws of Nature and God in Blackstone's terms, 1765. KF kairosfocus

Origines, kindly note the context Paul makes in Rom 2 and 13:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

The Decalogue is involved indeed but is then also set in a wider context of intelligible, built in law attested to by conscience: implications of the neighbour love principle. KF kairosfocus

MNY:

You talking about a lawgiver and objective morality, ....

When Christians talk about "objective morality" they refer to God as a lawgiver and laws such as the ones presented in his 10 commandments.

MNY: ... and then combine that with natural selection being a law of nature, then obviously social darwinism would ensue. ...

Why in the blue blazes would anyone combine the biblical 10 commandments with "natural selection"? What does that look like? I have never heard of such a thing.

MNY: ... Except for having the benefit of the history of the holocaust, showing that social darwinism leads to disaster.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Origenes

Objective morality is the overriding main cause in ideology, of both nazi and communist attrocities. That is my analysis about it. And obviously both nazis and communists would also still talk about love and such. You talking about a lawgiver and objective morality, and then combine that with natural selection being a law of nature, then obviously social darwinism would ensue. Except for having the benefit of the history of the holocaust, showing that social darwinism leads to disaster. mohammadnursyamsu

@Origenes KF saying so that opinions about beauty aren't chosen, is no argumentation. There are lower level decisionmaking processes involved in forming an opinion that the painting is beautiful. The lower level decisionmaking processes then present the resulting opinion to the higher level decisionmaking processes, as a basically finished opinion. So in that sense an opinion on beauty is not chosen, in that normally the higher level decisionmaking processes aren't doing any choosing on it. But in case of considering an opinion on a painting by Hitler, then higher level decisionmaking processes could be engaged in choosing an opinion whether the painting is beautiful. Subjectivity is logical. Subjectivity is solely about expressing what it is that makes a choice. That is the function of subjectivity. And only chosen opinions can express what it is that makes a choice, facts do not apply to that. mohammadnursyamsu

What's the reason for for instance, school shootings in the USA? Lack of objective morality in schools, or schools having thrown out the basic understanding of making choices, subjectivity and emotions, in throwing out creationism? It is very obvious that if you throw love out the window, that you can expect chaos. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY

To say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, therefore chosen.

To say "this painting is beautiful", to put it differently, lie about it or not to say anything at all, is a matter of free choice, as I have said several times already. To actually find a painting beautiful, to have a "beauty response", as KF puts it, is NOT a matter of free choice. MNY:

To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides a logically invalid personal opinion.

Maybe so. But it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. MNY:

(...) subjective means, that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means that it is identified with a 1 to 1 corresponding model. That is the logic underlying ordinary subjective statements, like to say, “I find this painting beautiful”, and ordinary objective statements, like to say, “there is a camel out back”.

We can use different words for both expressions, for "I find this painting beautiful” and for "there is a camel out back”. The fact that we have freedom of choice WRT our expressions obviously does not tell us which of the statements is subjective or objective. Origenes

Sandy, 118:

Why atheists argue for truth and try to bring evidences(no matter how true or false) in their favor? Because they can’t escape from the basic rule of moral law to JUSTIFY YOUR BEHAVIOUR. The fact of appealing to false evidences doesn’t change that unwritten rule of trying to explain why they hold a particular opinion.

Yes, this is a case of the branch on which we all must sit. A mark of inescapable first truths. Here, regarding duty and right conduct. The attempt to assert and expect acceptance of the claim, there are no objective moral truths is thus doubly incoherent. First, it is itself an appeal to the duties it would overthrow. Second, it is or directly implies a truth claim about duty. It is self-referentially incoherent and self-defeating. Thus, an error and point of confusion. However, many will regard truth claims about abstract principles as suspect, as not subject to scientific inquiry. They need to look at mathematics and logic and take pause. Then, they need to realise that first duties of reason are antecedent to and foundational for both Mathematics and Science. But many will stoutly resist as they fear that built in law of our nature points to a lawgiver antecedent to our existence; one, who is author of that nature and its built-in intelligible laws. One who is inherently good and utterly wise, necessary being creator, whose laws are in key parts intelligible, non-arbitrary and wholesome. KF KF kairosfocus

Origines, indeed, the beauty response is spontaneous and not directly chosen. However, recognition of beauty can be warped or dulled on one side, or enhanced and refined on the other. KF kairosfocus

MNY, only in your imagination have I discarded the subjective. I have consistently highlighted an uncontroversial epistemological point, that we are prone to error and so need to warrant knowledge claims. In the context of morality, drawing on Ciceronian first duties and noting Epictetus' point on inescapable first principles -- branch on which we all must sit -- I have concluded for cause that duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc are inescapable and so inescapably true. I highlighted that even would be objectors cannot but appeal to our intuitive recognition and knowledge of those duties. A point which you actually exemplify in your untoward insinuations about lying and lack of innocence etc. Such accusations imply duties to truth, sound conscience, neighbour etc. Conscience, BTW is an inner and subjective voice, others have no direct access to one's conscience. However, it can become dulled, benumbed, endarkened, hardened, calloused, silenced, warped. In the past, many were dulled to racial injustices etc. Accordingly its soundness must be safeguarded, hence other duties that lead to warrant and prudence, so too the validity and value of objective moral truth, truths about duty. Where for particular corrective example, duty to neighbour . . . to love neighbour [hardly cold-hearted calculation!] . . . implies duty to value, respect, cherish and to do no harm thus doing first duties of justice etc. Recognising objectivity of duties to justice -- due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities -- is not the cause of grave moral wrongs by Nazis, Communists or Capitalists for that matter. I repeat, well founded warrant is an appeal to duty, not force. And more, for record. KF kairosfocus

@querius You are obviously breaking down and discarding subjectivity in general, not just my explanation of it. To say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, therefore chosen. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides a logically invalid personal opinion. You assert personal opinions aren't chosen, which means you consider personal opinions to be forced, while forced opinions are logically invalid. There is things being forced, cause and effect, and things chosen, possibilities and decision. There isn't any other mechanism, as far as I know. Obviously the word "chair" was chosen when it was coined. But otherwise the word chair, in it's use, is forced. The evidence forces to the conclusion that a chair is there. The evidence does not force to the conclusion that a love for the way the painting looks is there. Objective words are forced in their use, subjective words are chosen in their use. The word "beautiful", expresses a love for the way the painting looks. Out of this love the word beautiful was chosen to be spoken. Which means the emotion love is on the side of what makes a choice. That is the only logic function of emotions, to do the job of making a decision turn out A instead of B. Obviously you have no understanding of emotions, which is an outrage. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact Emotions belong in category 1, as being an attribute of a creator. Personal character like courage, cowardice, likewise belongs in category no 1. That means emotions can only be identified with a chosen opinion. It is a matter of chosen opinion whether someone has love in their heart. Q Is it true that social darwinism is objective morality? A Yes, and lots of religious accepted God's law of natural selection as prescriptive Very obviously, objective morality leads people to be emtionless and calculating in moral issues, because that is the attitude that is appropriate for objective issues. mohammadnursyamsu

MN:

The word “beautiful” is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

Sure. Every word a person uses is chosen. But that is besides the point. As I said, it is not a choice to find a painting beautiful or not. MN:

The emotion is not chosen ...

Correct. Indeed, it is not a choice to find a painting beautiful or not. MN:

... the emotion is doing the choosing ...

Nonsense. An emotion is not a person. Only persons make choices. MN:

You can tell that this is how it works, by the wide variety in personal expression of a single individual. The painting is beautiful, it’s great, marvelous etc. All the variety in expression is proof that it operates in a free way, which is by choice.

The fact that we can use different words, different languages even, to express ourselves does not tell us that the things we express are matters of choice, as you erroniously seem to argue. Again, it is not a matter of choice to find a painting beautiful or not. MN:

For religious to promote objective morality, it basically means to promote social darwinism. Social darwinism is objective morality. Saying natural selection is the will of God.

You completely misunderstand what people like Kairosfocus mean by "objective morality". You seem to have no grasp of the subject at all. Origenes

I did my homework, figuring out what logic is used with objective statements, and subjective statements, in ordinary common discourse. It was rather simpler than the logic of tic tac toe, and much simpler than the rules of chess. The people who disregard subjectivity should get the judgement. Most clearly materialists, but I am getting the hang off it to pursue theists who disregard subjectivity as well. Discarding of subjectivity is not innocent. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY, you have taken a step that is ill advised. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus, I'm not sure anymore whether I'm being objective or subjective, but somehow I'm strangely reminded of Robert Benchley's famous observation that "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't." -Q Querius

@KF Your credibility that you take subjectivity seriously, is lacking. Because you assert morality as objective, and are ignorant of the basic logic of subjectivity. But I will say your comprehension of subjectivity is not exceptionally lacking. Generally everyone ignores subjectivity, and you are just one more who ignores it. It's still a total outrage. Somehow it does not click with you, that hey, subjectivity could be important. Even "importance" is subjective. The popsingers are singing about the subjective emotions, as the most important thing. It is the mainstay of religion. But still, you basically just ignore subjectivity. That is incomprehensible. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY, please refrain from accusations like that; they are offensive beyond measure. Then too, I suggest that warrant of credible truth is not force but an appeal to duty before truth, right reason and prudence. KF kairosfocus

@KF Objectivity does basically exclude freedom, because facts are FORCED by evidence. You are just talking outrageous lies. The truth of this matter is obvious, that the problem is that people reject subjectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

MNY:

materialists conceive of making a choice, the same as like a chesscomputer calculating a move

That is the precise opposite of a choice on freely evaluated principles understood as first duties. principles that can be seen as self-evident and thus objectively the case as true. Objectivity as truth does not undermine or remove our freedom of choice. Indeed, duty is a concomitant of freedom, the voice of responsibility in response to discerning wisdom and soundness. Voices, manifestly, can be shut out, distorted or not heeded -- including conscience. Though, here, one would be ill advised not to heed. Also, in some cases, there needs to be considerable contemplation, evaluation, prudence and more to find the way of wisdom and virtue. All of which pivots on the built in freedom of the self-moved morally -- not mechanically and/or stochastically -- governed agent. The issue is not reality of agency or freedom but establishment of first duties as pervasive, binding, so not dubious or delusional figments of imagination or community pressure. That is, objective in the relevant sense. With, in the stakes, the possibility of individual and community moral growth through gradual renewal, reflection, reformation informed by well warranted principles. Something, which has been historically important and which now needs to be safeguarded against manipulation by ideologues who would impose evils and perversities on others under false colour of rights. A capital example being the slaughter of 800+ million unborn children over the past generation, mounting at another million per week. It is difficult to strike a balance, but that is the nature of philosophy, the department of hard fundamental questions including those of value, justice, beauty, ethics and truth. KF kairosfocus

@Origenes Materialists have a psychological motive, which is based on them defining making a choice, in terms of figuring out the best option. This conception of making a choice, in terms of what is best, has enormous psychological appeal. Because people are pressured to do the best, and because people like the best. Materialists threw out the spirit from their concept of making a choice, is how they became a materialist in the first place. So then materialists conceive of making a choice, the same as like a chesscomputer calculating a move. mohammadnursyamsu

Actual objective morality: ===== Yes comrades, throw out all those sentiments of a subjective morality, and accept the truth of the objective morality, based on God's law of natural selection. Isn't it obvious that our major emotions are geared precisely towards reproductive success? The major emotions are involved with a spouse, a mother, a father, children. Isn't it obvious this is all about reproduction? Isn't that the objective moral code? An objective moral code fashioned by God into a law of nature, the law of natural selection. ===== The only reason why the people who say to support objective morality, do not support social darwinism, is because of the history of the holocaust. If now would have been prior to the holocaust, then all of the objective morality folks would support social darwinism. Social darwinism is simply logical, if objective morality would be true. It's such an outrage that you all keep on being totally ignorant about how subjectivity works, while I have explained it time and again. A subjective opinion is chosen, and a subjective opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice. Which means, the part of reality that is subjective, is the part that makes the choices. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact Kind of a big issue, subjectivity. Yet none of you actually accept the validity of subjectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

Q, never underestimate the intellectual influence of big-S science taken captive to evolutionary materialistic scientism. KF kairosfocus

Q:

So what baffles me is their motivation and why they even bother.

For some reason everything is allowed to protect an obviously false narrative. What makes it so precious to them? My take is that they know they are part of a lie, but that is of secondary importance to them. What is all important to them is their social presence in the world; as opposed to the innerworld of self. It's all about keeping up appearances. The narrative is all-important for the performance of their social identity. Summing up, we are dealing with people who have yet to learn that the social world, where the lie rules surpreme, is of lesser importance than the inner truth. Origenes

Q, do not underestimate the significance of the penumbra of attack sites. Nor the institutionalised power of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies. KF kairosfocus

Sandy @118, Yes, indeed. And typically they don't really believe in relativism in their own day-to-day experiences. Imagine their reaction to someone driving over their lawn, their dog, or their foot . . . All of a sudden they go absolute on someone who was just peacefully doing public performance art with their car as a political or personal statement. -Q Querius

Just some observations and questions.

The objective moral law is working even in atheists and all their "struggle" to prove us wrong with "evidences" has a base in the moral law that live in our hearths that nobody can escape from no matter what their beliefs are. Why atheists argue for truth and try to bring evidences(no matter how true or false) in their favor? Because they can't escape from the basic rule of moral law to JUSTIFY YOUR BEHAVIOUR. The fact of appealing to false evidences doesn't change that unwritten rule of trying to explain why they hold a particular opinion. Sandy

Kairosfocus @111,

Q, a self-referentially incoherent position is not defensible on rational grounds, especially as it denies the possibility of what it implies itself to be (an objective truth regarding principles of right conduct) and as it invites the grand delusion inference, sawing off the branch on which we all must sit (if something so widely present and significant as perceived moral duties and the voice of conscience are delusional, mind comes under loss of credibility).

Very true, but the fact doesn't seen to faze certain people here. They simply jump in and out of "objective truth" as needed for the moment. There's a reason for this.

However, far too many in our day cling to irrational ideologies such as evolutionary materialism, often failing to realise its nihilistic import warned against on public record since Plato reflected on the collapse of Athens’ democratic experiment.

The word "cling" is key here! Reason alone did not bring them to evolutionary materialism, and reason alone is not keeping them there. But they are indeed clinging to evolutionary materialism even though 1. Darwinism was a 19th century speculation based on a pigeon breeding analogy but without scientific evidence, but rather the promise that such evidence would someday be found. Since then, the theory simply accommodates or rationalizes evidence that would otherwise falsify this pathetic theory. 2. Materialism was basically shattered nearly a century ago with the discoveries in quantum mechanics that reality is fundamentally immaterial, based on probabilities, information, and conscious observation. Historically and currently, a huge amount of scientific effort has been expended to try to keep the ships, HMS Evolutionary and USS Materialism, from sinking, including suppression of dissent and outright fraud. But this still doesn't answer the question as to why certain detractors persistently are first to respond to many posts and use the same tired, falsified information and reasoning as they always have. They do not present new information or scientific explanations, but rely on rhetorical devices to mislead, divert, or mock more serious discussion. In other words, the arguments are disingenuous and generally uninformed. So what baffles me is their motivation and why they even bother. - Do they need self validation? - Do they feel smug and secure in "following the current scientific narrative" that they feel invulnerable and know deep inside that they just gotta be right? - Do they simply want to distract other contributors from serious discussion or waste their precious time? The result often resembles squirrels taunting dogs to chase them into a forest (I'm speaking as one of the dogs) where they simply disappear when finally cornered and reappear on a fresh post using the same flawed information and logic as before. Or is there something else? After all, I don't appear on evolutionary forums taunting the people there about how, for example, "Lucy's" bones were found widely scattered in different strata without feet, and then providing a link to the following: https://www.icr.org/article/human-foot-bone-misidentified-lucys to whip the Darwinists there into a frenzy and asking them to provide other data on Lucy---which I then pronounce insufficient and ignore the work they put into assembling it. Just some observations and questions. -Q Querius

MNY, I wrote for needed record. KF kairosfocus

@KF We've been trough all this before. 1. It is the obvious truth that people have intellectual problems with understanding subjectivity, not with objectivity. This is just my experience in exploring this issue for years. The scientific method does a good enough job in dealing with objectivity. There is no subjective counterpart to the scientific method, for people to get a handle on dealing with subjectivity. The instruction on subjectivity is simply generally absent. If people have serious problems with objectivity, it is generally because they have emotional problems, because they are so bad at dealing with subjectivity in the first place. And then you misconstrue this as people having problems with objectivity, being the root cause of the problem. 2. History shows in regards to social darwinism, nazis and the holocaust, and also the Japanese in world war 2, that objective morality is simply emotionless, merciless, calculated morality. Also with communism, it all seems very objectified, and the objectification just leads to completely emotionless, merciless attitudes. Objective morality has a historically bad track record. 3. It is patently obvious that atheists / materialists have deep problems with subjectivity. It is really quite obvious that atheists go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about the facts, and science, 24/ 7 , and that they are clueless about subjectivity. You are siding with the people, who are against God. 4. Whenever you are not trashing subjectivity, then you are just providing meaningless lip service to subjectivity, without proper logical validation. You are simply clueless yourself about how subjectivity works. The reason why people have subjectivity at all, is because of dealing with the issue, of what it was that made a decison turn out A instead of B. The solution to answering any questionof that sort, is to somehow choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. So then it can be exclaimed, emotively, that it was love that made the decision turn out A instead of B. No it wasn't, it was a putrid evil, most foul, that made the decision turn out A instead of B. That's how it works, THOSE ARE THE RULES!! WE MUST HAVE RULES!! 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact mohammadnursyamsu

F/N: as example, "one ought not to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child on the way home from school for one's [sicko!] pleasure." This asserts and implies that it is the case that a certain state of affairs is a violation of duty to neighbour, and a gross injustice thus should not be instantiated, there is no just freedom or right to act in that way. Thus it declares a truth claim about right or wrong conduct and duty; including that certain duties are objective and intelligible to a normally functioning human being. The denial that such truth claims are objective runs right into Hawthorne's stricture in 106, and as this is a manifest, self-evident -- and sadly real life -- case, the denial is a manifestation of monstrous absurdity. This is above and beyond rightly provoked feelings of revulsion, outrage etc. KF kairosfocus

PPS: Though in an age haunted by relativism, subjectivism and emotivism, beauty is often seen as a personal, non-rational perception, there is an entire discipline of aesthetics that has long since identified fairly convincing principles and guidelines that make beauty an intelligible and significantly objective study. One that demonstrably guided the artists responsible for many major classics [think here Parthenon, Giza, Mona Lisa, Nefertiti etc], and where today's deliberate flouting . . . notoriously in architecture . . . creates eyesores such as London's spoiled skyline. I hope that Paris at least holds the line. That could also for example extend to the young lady at the bank yesterday who helped me with a transaction. As she grew up in church I observed that while her older sister was quite pretty in face, this little girl's face was a classic in the making. And, now that she is all grown up, that proves true, with her brilliant, shining coal eyes as focal feature. kairosfocus

MNY, your claims pivot on a need to recognise that our being conscious, self-moved, reflexively acting agents is further constrained by the well understood fact that we are error-prone, finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed, delusional and stubborn. That is why duty to prudence includes duty to so warrant key claims through right reason that they are credibly true and at the least empirically reliable. That is what objectivity of truth claims is about, providing reasonable warrant that key claims are credible, not likely to be error-riddled or stubbornly asserted and clung to in the teeth of evident facts and logic or duties of fairness and justice etc. The destructive power of slander, gossip, bigotry, ill-founded ideologies [think Marxism and its kissing cousin nazism] or simply paranoid perceptions of the world and those around one, are suggestive of the concerns involved. As such, it does not undermine our freedom to choose but guides and guards us -- yes, voice of conscience is engaged -- in reasoning aright and doing due diligence on duty to truth. Which is also foundational to duties to neighbour including fairness and justice. KF PS: As a reminder, taking first that the truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not; Collins English Dictionary:

objective (?b?d??kt?v) adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?. 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc 4. (Medicine) med (of disease symptoms) perceptible to persons other than the individual affected

kairosfocus

Q, a self-referentially incoherent position is not defensible on rational grounds, especially as it denies the possibility of what it implies itself to be (an objective truth regarding principles of right conduct) and as it invites the grand delusion inference, sawing off the branch on which we all must sit (if something so widely present and significant as perceived moral duties and the voice of conscience are delusional, mind comes under loss of credibility). However, far too many in our day cling to irrational ideologies such as evolutionary materialism, often failing to realise its nihilistic import warned against on public record since Plato reflected on the collapse of Athens' democratic experiment. Evo mat, of course, while boasting of its rationality and scientific character . . . a little odd since it was on the ground as an ideology in Plato's day . . . also fails to account for our rational, responsible freedom, necessary for reasoned thought to have credibility. KF kairosfocus

Wow, Bornagain77 @106 and Kairosfocus @107, Brilliant, well-crafted replies! I hope Seversky takes the time to consider what you both presented. But here's why I'm skeptical. Let me suggest possibility that all Seversky wants to do here is assure himself of a defensible position with which he can rationalize his lifestyle. Nothing more. In other words, he doesn't have to win the debate, just not lose. So, the key is understanding why he makes the effort and where the source of his rejection lies. -Q Querius

@Origenes Again, what am I to do with your arbitrary assertions that do not even try to discover any rules? You do not propose any counter set of rules, to my rules, you only propose your personal authority. You are wasting my time with your baseless assertions. The word "beautiful" is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. The emotion is not chosen, the emotion is doing the choosing, the word is chosen. You can tell that this is how it works, by the wide variety in personal expression of a single individual. The painting is beautiful, it's great, marvelous etc. All the variety in expression is proof that it operates in a free way, which is by choice. For religious to promote objective morality, it basically means to promote social darwinism. Social darwinism is objective morality. Saying natural selection is the will of God. With subjectivity thrown out from morality, all the emotion is thrown out, causing people to become ruthless, calculating, measuring. mohammadnursyamsu

PS: The rut we have put our civilisation into is longstanding; there was no excuse of innocent ignorance. Plato, c 360 BC:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

He went on to infer:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them . . . . Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators . . . . they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.] [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.

We have willfully forgotten and have gone right back into the same rut we were warned against on record over 2300 years ago. The rut that ruined Athens, the first democracy in our civilisation and discredited democracy for 2,000 years. There is no excuse for our folly. kairosfocus

Sev, In re your attempted rebuttal:

The claim that there are no moral truths is not in itself a moral claim. It is a claim about what ‘is’ not a claim about what ‘ought’ to be.

On the contrary, a moral truth claim asserts that it is the case that a certain state of affairs obtains in respect of right conduct. That is, it asserts or implies that oughtness on particular or general matters is an actuality, not a mere feeling, perception or imagination etc. Or else, it asserts that such a claim of oughtness is false, i.e. the denial is of the same character as the affirmation. Where, too, every claim regarding what is actually the case [i.e. a claim of truth], or of right or failed reasoning, or warrant or failed warrant, etc, implies associated duties that ought to be duly fulfilled. That is, fundamentally, while is and ought are distinct concepts they are inseparable in our lives of free, responsible reason. This, I will further draw out in a moment, but back to your claim as cited. By now, it will be evident that the assertion that there are no objective -- well warranted -- moral truths implies directly that all moral truth-claims are false and so dismissible. At best they are descriptions of inclinations about behaviour. But, as was pointed out in the first place, such a claim is in patent fact a huge claim about duties, obligations, the value and dignity and even end of those to whom duties are owed. That is, even hiding behind the is-ought gap, the assertion that denies objectivity to moral truth claims as a whole is in fact just such a moral truth claim. It is a claim that also references and contradicts itself, it is self refuting and by principle of explosion radically undermines ability to discern truth from falsity. Aided, in this, by many handy slogans about is and ought and alleged impossibility of bridging the two. (The true answer is they are inseparable and must be unified in the root of reality, but then there are entire heavily institutionalised worldviews and cultural agendas afoot and holding considerable cultural power that ill advisedly seek to undermine ability to recognise such.) Will Hawthorne is apt in exposing the underlying error by way of yardstick test cases that are manifest:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true [--> so, there are no realities beyond the observed temporal-causal, matter-energy, space-time order and whatever "multiverse" or quantum foam extensions thereof that are fashionable]. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'.

See how a hidden, worldview assumption dressed up in a lab coat warps ability to recognise even patent reality? That should make us realise that the worldview level, question begging involved is a grand fallacy, one reducing itself to absurdity. Not only in cases such as Hitler, Stalin or the like or with those who kidnap, sexually torture and murder children on the way home from school, but already in the nature of the assertion itself. For the assertion that there are no objective moral truths, no truths regarding duty towards things and beings of value with proper ends, is itself implicitly a huge -- and absurdly self-referential -- claim to the truth about such matters. It refutes itself. So, the sounder view would instead start with even just the negative form of the inescapable ciceronian first duties of responsible reason: for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are demonically lawless and destructive. More positively, we cannot but appeal to generally, intuitively known and accepted, duties to truth, right reason warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc. The objector, just like the rest of us, as your own objection above implies as you set out to try to correct my perceived blunders. Only, they are not blunders. We find that yes, is and ought are distinct: what ought to be the case, in a world where wrongs, errors, follies etc obtain ever so often, may well not be what is, what obtains as fact. Further, we struggle to find an is capable of bearing the awesome weight of ought. Obviously, space-time, matter-energy wavicles and causal-temporal thermodynamically constrained chains of events cannot suffice. And so in a world with dominant evolutionary materialistic ideology dressed up in the lab coat many will be tempted to infer that ought is groundless, cannot be objective. But that is already a claim of pervasive grand delusion that undermines credibility of mind. Yet another absurdity, here self-referential to those who think like that. Another clue that something is deeply wrong here. Anything that invites a grand delusion inference can be freely set aside as sawing off the branch on which we must sit as inescapably rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. We can term such errors, cases of the Plato's Cave fallacy. Instead, let us recognise inextricable intertwining of is and ought in our reasoning so that BOTH are real and must be fused in the one place in the system of reality where such is possible: root of reality, source of worlds including those with rational, responsible, significantly free intelligent creatures guided and guarded by conscience. We want an IS that is at root of reality that simultaneously grounds OUGHT. Realty root already implies necessary being capable of causing worlds including our own. Fusing is and ought points to precisely one serious candidate, and if you doubt or dismiss kindly provide another without reduction to absurdity: _____. Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Where, what is good or evil, constructive or chaotically destructive is often quite intelligible. So too, Euthyphro as extended from Greek superman gods to the Supreme, world-root being fails. The good is neither arbitrary decree nor independent of the root of reality but can be understood in key part by us and seen to flow from the one who is both utterly wise and inherently good. The radical secularist scheme collapses. And, we duly note how many times the objection above inescapably implies appeals to Ciceronian first duties. Duties testified to by our consciences and which thereby shape how we reason and decide. KF kairosfocus

Seversky at 103 states,

Both WLC and you should be aware that Dawkins’s quote refers to the appearance of “pitiless indifference” of the Universe. If there is some sort of objective morality out there it sure doesn’t seem to be doing much, if anything at all.

But alas Seversky, you are, (once again), missing the elephant in your own 'mental' living room. To quote C.S. Lewis, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” — C. S. Lewis

i.e. You yourself must have some objective standard of moral perfection in mind for you to even be able to communicate to other people your idea that the universe is morally imperfect, and/or 'pitilessly indifferent' as Dawkins put it. Yet there can be no objective standard of moral perfection that all people can recognize if God does not actually exist.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

i.e. You, and Dawkins, in assuming that the universe is pitilessly indifferent, are both, unwittingly, assuming an objective standard of moral perfection, that all people can recognize, and that has been departed from, and are thus both, unwittingly, assuming the objective reality of God in your argument that the universe is 'pitilessly indifferent', i.e. morally imperfect. Moreover, Dawkins full quote is as such,

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Yet directly contrary to what Dawkins claimed, "the universe that we observe", and "at bottom", screams design and purpose. As Luke Barnes explained, ",,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,,"

The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws

Moreover, to make matters exponentially worse for Dawkins's claim that 'the universe that we observe' is, 'at bottom', 'pitilessly indifferent' to the existence of humans, is the fact that advances in quantum mechanics have now proven that 'the universe we observe' does not even exist until we are, in fact, observing it. As the following delayed choice experiment with atoms demonstrated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms

Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

Thus Seversky, Dawkins and you, due to your a-priori atheistic assumptions, may falsely claim that 'the universe that we observe' is, 'at bottom', 'pitilessly indifferent' to the existence of humans, but as far as empirical science itself is concerned, both the fine-tuning of fundamental particles, and even the 'observations' of those fundamental particles themselves, both reveal that the universe is, 'at bottom', very far from being pitilessly indifferent' to the existence of humans. Not that empirical science ever really seems to matter to you Seversky, but as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Dawkins's claim of 'pitiless indifference' is now shown to be a patently false claim. And If you ever do decide to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should, due to the empirical science itself, immediately drop your atheistic worldview and adopt some form of Theism that holds God to be a 'personal' God Who is very much concerned with the affairs of men. Might I point out that Christian Theism has the most 'personal' God possible out of all the mono-Theistic religions?? bornagain77

Kairosfocus/99

PS: One stunt is to pretend that there is one objective moral trut;, that there are no objective moral truths.

The claim that there are no moral truths is not in itself a moral claim. It is a claim about what 'is' not a claim about what 'ought' to be.

OOPS.

Yes, although not in the sense you intended.

They hope we don’t spot how this is self-referential and self-defeating.

The claim about the non-existence of objective moral truths is neither. And, again, the lack of objective moral truths is no bar to our creation of moral codes with the same objectives of justice and fair treatment for all, respect for the rights of others regardless of race, sex, gender, creed or color, embracing diversity rather than fearing it, protecting the powerless from exploitation and abuse by the powerful, preserving the environment on which we all depend for our survival from exploitation by the few for short-term personal gain and so on. Morality is not a few divine commandments engraved on tablets of stone a few thousand years ago. It is a living, growing corpus of moral thinking that has evolved slowly and often painfully over the centuries and is continuing to be refined. How do you know this isn't what your God intended to happen? Seversky

Kairosfocus @95,

ET, at core level, duty to neighbour enfolds the decalogue; but it lays out an approach that allows the willing to think through and understand the whys of things like banning willful deception etc.. KF

Good point--exactly! In Judaism, the rabbis pride themselves in being able to extract new laws from the principles revealed in the Ten Commandments and the 603 other laws in Torah. In fact, the specificity of some of them indicates that they're to be used as examples. So, let's consider the Ninth Commandment . . .

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. ( Exodus 20:16)

One understands that it applies to spreading false reports, slander, libel, framing someone, malicious tweets, and so on intended to cause someone harm. It does not require that every detail must be perfect without abstraction: Alice: "How are you today, Bob?" Bob: "Fine." Is this bearing false witness because Bob noticed a chipped tooth this morning and bumped his knee on a desk? -Q Querius

Bornagain77/79

Vivid: “For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation” BINGO! That is the same blatant contradiction in logic that William Lane Craig observed in Richard Dawkins’ arguments against objective morality.,

“Although Dawkins says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, the fact is that Dawkins is also a stubborn moralist. For example,,,” – Richard Dawkins on the Moral Argument for God: by William Lane Craig https://youtu.be/d-OjSKr79aQ?t=65

Both WLC and you should be aware that Dawkins's quote refers to the appearance of "pitiless indifference" of the Universe. If there is some sort of objective morality out there it sure doesn't seem to be doing much, if anything at all. And if there is no objective morality out there to which we can turn, doesn't it make it all the more imperative that we develop our own morality in the interests of a more just, fair and stable society for all? Seversky

JVL:

It’s a start but it leaves a lot of issues out. For instance: should women be allowed to vote? Should women be allowed to be ministers or priests? Who should have jurisdiction over ancient remains (a reference to Kenewick Man)?

Please make the case that those have anything to do with objective morality. You are grasping, as usual. But please, prove me wrong. ET

@100 Mo

A (subjective) opinion, like to say a painting is beautiful, is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

For me, to find a painting beautiful or not, is not a choice at all. I cannot choose to find a painting beautiful. Surely I can choose to express my appreciation for the painting or not and I can even choose to lie about it. But this goes for all my statements.

For religious people to promote objective morality, is a big lie.

Why? Origenes

For religious people to promote objective morality, is a big lie. People always have problems with subjectivity, they do not have problems with objectivity. Atheists do not accept subjectivity, and subjective morality. I've discussed this with lots of atheists, because it is my main interest. By "subjectivity" atheists mean; - something in the brain that is entirely material, and entirely objective. - Atheists do not accept the entire subjective part of reality. Usually the atheist will argue like, that an emotion such as love is objective, but the experience of this love is then subjective. Then when I further question what this "experience" is supposed to consist of, they always end up with something objective. The atheist does not accept subjectivity in the creationist and common discourse sense of the term, that what makes a choice, is identified with a chosen opinoin. Atheists are also very fond of incorporating subjective terminology into science. Like Richard Dawkins, with his "seflish" gene theory. Or even Hugh Laurie the actor, who had this show where he can establish "lying" without judgement, as just a scientific fact. They like to appropiate the subjective terminology into science, and assert it all as objective and factual. mohammadnursyamsu

PS: One stunt is to pretend that there is one objective moral trut;, that there are no objective moral truths. OOPS. They hope we don't spot how this is self-referential and self-defeating. Many others simply have not realised this. But when we deal with those who should or do know better, there is no excuse for such self-refuting schemes of thought in general and especially on the moral government of our rational, responsible freedom. KF kairosfocus

Sandy, yes, that is why ordinary people need sound anchoring and need to be ever vigilant about would be usurpers and their stunts. KF kairosfocus

PS: Locke:

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

This is directly antecedent to the US DoI, 1776, charter of modern constitutional democracy. Where, note how cancel culture SJW red guards are now attacking its main author. Hence the relevance of standing on the reformation principle. Let's go there, recognising that on foundation of duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, sound conscience, duty to neighbour leads straight to fairness and justice. Justice being due balance of rights, freedoms and duties:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

That's the history the radicals want to suppress, the better to cut us off from sound understanding of bitterly bought lessons on how we can escape consequences of the natural state of government by the corrupted: lawless oligarchy. kairosfocus

The subjectivism, relativism and emotivism such fallacies support have failed on the merits. Which does not prevent them from being ideologically powerful.

Ideologies are kept alive not by ordinary people but the ordinary people are brainwashed in order to keep alive those evil ideologies . Sandy

ET, at core level, duty to neighbour enfolds the decalogue; but it lays out an approach that allows the willing to think through and understand the whys of things like banning willful deception etc.. KF kairosfocus

PS: We duly note the continued side-stepping of the establishment of the point that even objectors to the first duties are forced to appeal to them to try to be persuasive. Thus we see the inescapability of first principles in action, which are inescapable so inescapably true. Framing a coherent system of first duties that allows articulation of objective, sound moral thought, law and government. Which happens to have a major history of contributing to the rise of modern liberty and constitutional democracy. The contrast to the heritage of the jacobins since 1789 could not be clearer. There is clearly no good reason to imagine there are no objective moral truths. Where that little fallacy just now is actually a claimed -- failed, self refuting -- morality truth claim. The subjectivism, relativism and emotivism such fallacies support have failed on the merits. Which does not prevent them from being ideologically powerful. kairosfocus

JVL, you have studiously avoided the response to your shopping list of distractors approach. For the record:

71: >>you [by posing a shopping list of distractive demands] seem to be unaware of the reformation principle, where in real historical, going concern settings, we have pre existing circumstances. Absent radical utopian imposition which always ends in oppression as radical revolutions since 1789, 1870 and 1917 have underscored, there has to be a slow building of sensitisation and soundness of conscience, creation of agreed consensus on responsible amelioration or reform etc. At simple level have you forgotten the result of the prohibition experiment in the US? Namely, the Mafia gained a huge boost and the law was brought into disrepute. I suggest that your side tracking issues would be best approached through the reformation principle. And we cannot but notice that the force of inescapable first duties may have been distracted from but are not cogently objected to . . . . You also conveniently side step centuries of contribution during which those ciceronian first duties as key natural law shaped the emergence of modern liberty and constitutional democracy. Failing to attend to such is a material factor in the breakdown of lawfulness and rise of suicidal nihilism and marches of folly that are increasingly obvious in our time.>> 75: >>the corrective to radicalism and SJW-ism’s cancel culture, Red Guardism, etc stands. So do the Ciceronian first duties of reason as core to an objective framework of morality, sound community order, law and government.>> 77: >>BTW as historically demonstrated the 7 Ciceronian principles articulate a global core that governs rational responsible freedom, the ellipsis implies articulation to literally anything. In a sense they are analogous to an axiomatisation, which should be obvious from what they are, the above [e.g. Paul’s elaboration of neighbour love as a microcosm of not only the decalogue but lawfulnes) and the actual course of thousands of years of history. The notion that because these are not a 32k-page EU-like Constitution that tries to capture every conceivable hobby horse, they are not comprehensive, fails. Ponder just how broad and microcosm-like and mutually coherent truth, right reason, prudence including warrant and sound conscience are. >>

The this is always year zero of the latest utopia and let us stigmatise and cancel the past approach fails. Instead, we need a sound framework that allows gradual development and reform, understood as a sound alternative to radical impositions that never end well. FYI, this is not year zero and we have seen where radical revolutions consistently go. We consciously accept the path of gradual, sound reformation as by far a better choice. KF kairosfocus

should women be allowed to vote?

You are naive or evil . https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rtxG93cPlus

Ummm . . . are you saying giving women the rights to vote, own property, go to university, etc were essentially negative innovations?

Ummm...what are the results? You are the result of "feminism" ... Sandy

ET: The 10 Commandments is a good place to start for objective morality. It's a start but it leaves a lot of issues out. For instance: should women be allowed to vote? Should women be allowed to be ministers or priests? Who should have jurisdiction over ancient remains (a reference to Kenewick Man)? Again, a good start but how do you get more granular? JVL

@Origenes You don't seem to be following any rules. You don't seem to really read my posts, you don't study what rules are used in common discourse. This all just seems to be about you "emoting" some point of view. I already, answered your question, as much as it can be answered. I also already explained objectivity and subjectivity. A dictionary definition is not the same as how a word is defined, in actual practical common discourse. These people from the dictionary may just likely be atheists, and define things according to their atheistic ideas, and not according to the meaning in common discourse. A (subjective) opinion, like to say a painting is beautiful, is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. An (objective) fact, like to say there is a camel out back, is a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation in the mind, forced by the evidence of it. You see? Rules. The rules for subjective statements and objective statements, as they are in common discourse, hopefully, accurately reflected by me, and not fantasized by me. mohammadnursyamsu

@86 Mohammadnursyamsu, Dictionary.com:

Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something. In contrast, objectivemost commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only.

So, here the difference between subjective and objective is the difference between a person “observing” something and a person “analyzing” something. First of all, this obviously does not provide a clear distinction. Also, given that each person can only operate from a personal perspective, [there is no such thing as a non-personal viewpoint] there is no pathway offered to objectivity.

It is apparent to me that the people supporting objective morality, understand nothing about morality.

As I understand it, the pro-objective-morality crowd, argues for moral laws coming from a realm independent from us. This would satisfy one of your cherised common discourse rules, namely that “objective” means not being based on a personal (human) viewpoint. p.s. You continue to ignore my specific question. Origenes

The 10 Commandments is a good place to start for objective morality. ET

Bob O'H:

But my point was that the decision about whether anything is pornographic is subjective (as Judge Stewart) was acknowledging.

Hard core pornography. The decision pertained to hard core pornography. Clearly you are proud to be clueless. ET

@origenes It is apparent to me that the people supporting objective morality, understand nothing about morality. If you are not interested in the rules used in common discourse, then don't use the rules in talking, then talk arbitrary gibberish instead. You already have a position, whether you like it or not, the common discourse position. It was forced upon you, it is unavoidable. The logic of subjectivity and objectivity is the same in any language. So then you are supposed to research what your actual position is, in investigating common discourse. And from there, from your common discourse position, you can negotiate between it, and other intellectual ideas. You cannot just intellectually entertain ideas that are contradictory to common discourse, without even noting that they are contradictory, because that would leave you open to accusations that you are duplicit, and a liar. Which is immorality. Saying one thing is true in common discourse, and saying another thing is true intellectually. mohammadnursyamsu

Vividbleau: For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation LOL. I would call it incredulity. As to rights in your worldview they have no objective existence either or do they? If they don’t well we are left with your opinion ,which your certainly entitled to and ( cough cough) might makes rights. I would say that, sometimes, might makes laws not right. Sandy: There are no “civil rights of women” but actualy are just civil rights of “state” to destroy family and educate the children as they wish. We see the fruits now. With these “civil rights” women lost their way because they were an undestructible power inside family for children and husband. Now they are just crazy blue hair transexual freaks. Children were the main target but for that they had to remove woman from her task of preserving the family and educating the children. Ummm . . . are you saying giving women the rights to vote, own property, go to university, etc were essentially negative innovations? JVL

PS: He also comments:

To sum up: empiricism has categories for statements of “disproved” and “not disproved” and also for “parsimonious” and “not parsimonious.” By means of a faculty other than empirical thought, a scientist invents an account, myth, or model to predict the behavior of matter. If his model contains no more entities than needed, it is “parsimonious.” If the model does not accurately predict the attempted behavior, it is “disproved”. If not, it is “not disproved.” Karl Popper adds the refinement that if there is no possible predicted behavior exists which can register a “disproved” statement, then the model is not science at all. This is empiricism. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Science holds as an axiom, neither to be proved nor disproven in science, the following statement of the empirical axiom: “a parsimonious non-disproved model is true, provisionally.” This is a metaphysical statement, not open to disproof by any empirical means. This is epistemology. Unrelated to all this is secularism, a political posture. Secularism promotes indifference to religion, or, at least, that neutrality toward religion is the proper stance for civic and political affairs. It runs in harness with Materialism, which states that nothing outside or above the material world exists, or, if it does exist, no statements about it are open to proof or disproof, or, if they are open to proof, the proofs are of no particular objective value or subjective interest. The first is a political opinion, the second a philosophical statement of ontology: neither one can either be proved or disproved by empirical investigation. They are unrelated to science, even though they pretend to bask in the reputation science radiates.

Methinks, we have here a person of interest who should be "assisting the police with investigations." We have painted ourselves into a corner and consequences that were brushed aside and dismissed when they were mere warnings are now beginning to stare us down. Nihilism and lawlessness, ideological oligarchy of the lawless etc cannot build or sustain a sound civilisation. It is time to rethink how we got ourselves painted into this corner. kairosfocus

F/N: J C Wright draws out a tad regarding duty to neighbour (in the already linked):

Moses and Confucius and Christ [--> and Paul!], and every other sage and thinker in antiquity have voiced the moral axiom of the Golden Rule: Do as you would be Done by. This is a wise conclusion. If you doubt it, try living your life with a moral and mental rule that the laws that apply to others apply to others only and not to you. Live in a land where everyone adopts the rule that they live with rules that apply only to others, never to themselves. Puzzle over the logic of how a dispute would be solved between two moral actors who both agree the rules only applies to the other: or how any dispute could be solved at all, in the absence of a universal rule equally applied. You will soon become confused and foolish. The inability to see wisdom as a valid category of thought—for it is neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable, but neither is it empiricism nor rationalism—has led modern philosophy into blatant folly and paradox.

In short, the duty of love to neighbour of like rational responsibly free order, with do no harm/wrong and fairness-justice, is coherent and works towards the civil peace of justice. The suggestion also shows how evils parasite on others, bringing out the Kant Categorical Imperative in universalisability form. KF kairosfocus

Bornagain77, Mindblowing! Thanks for the update. -Q Querius

Q, and yet that is the beauty of empirical science, the evidence is what it is. The meta-analysis that I listed put an exclamation point on the preceding study.

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis – 2012 Excerpt: This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect.,,, To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size ,,,, Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

And please note, the more rigorous the study was, the better the results were. Not 'case closed' evidence quite yet, but still very impressive, and consistent, evidence thus far none-the-less. Just for curiosity sake, I looked to see if they continued their study, and I just found this 2018 update to the study:

Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis - 2018 Discussion This update of the Mossbridge et al. (2012) meta-analysis related to the so called predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) responses to future random stimuli, covers the period January 2008- July 2018. Overall, we found 19 new studies describing a total of 36 effect sizes. Differently from the statistical approach of Mossbridge et al., in this meta-analysis we used a frequentist and a Bayesian multilevel model which allows an analysis of all effect sizes reported within a single study instead of averaging them. Both the frequentist and the Bayesian analyses converged on similar results, making our findings quite robust. ,,, Conclusion This update confirms the main results reported in Mossbridge et al. (2012) original meta-analysis and gives further support to the hypothesis of predictive physiological anticipatory activity of future random events. This phenomenon may hence be considered among the more reliable within those covered under the umbrella term “psi” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/

bornagain77

Bornagain77 @68, Thanks for the updated links. The experimental results are astonishing! Nevertheless in a reality that includes quantum erasure, perhaps one ought not to be surprised. Still, I find myself grasping for objections. -Q Querius

Vivid: "For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation" BINGO! That is the same blatant contradiction in logic that William Lane Craig observed in Richard Dawkins' arguments against objective morality.,

"Although Dawkins says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, the fact is that Dawkins is also a stubborn moralist. For example,,," - Richard Dawkins on the Moral Argument for God: by William Lane Craig https://youtu.be/d-OjSKr79aQ?t=65

bornagain77

JVL For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation LOL. As to rights in your worldview they have no objective existence either or do they? If they don’t well we are left with your opinion ,which your certainly entitled to and ( cough cough) might makes rights. Vivid vividbleau

F/N: BTW as historically demonstrated the 7 Ciceronian principles articulate a global core that governs rational responsible freedom, the ellipsis implies articulation to literally anything. In a sense they are analogous to an axiomatisation, which should be obvious from what they are, the above [e.g. Paul's elaboration of neighbour love as a microcosm of not only the decalogue but lawfulnes) and the actual course of thousands of years of history. The notion that because these are not a 32k-page EU-like Constitution that tries to capture every conceivable hobby horse, they are not comprehensive, fails. Ponder just how broad and microcosm-like and mutually coherent truth, right reason, prudence including warrant and sound conscience are. KF kairosfocus

why woman had to wait longer than men to be granted some of the same civil rights.

BS. There are no "civil rights of women" but actualy are just civil rights of "state" to destroy family and educate the children as they wish. We see the fruits now. With these "civil rights" women lost their way because they were an undestructible power inside family for children and husband. Now they are just crazy blue hair transexual freaks. Children were the main target but for that they had to remove woman from her task of preserving the family and educating the children. . Sandy

JVL, the corrective to radicalism and SJW-ism's cancel culture, Red Guardism, etc stands. So do the Ciceronian first duties of reason as core to an objective framework of morality, sound community order, law and government. KF kairosfocus

Sandy: To make an objective moral statement about an objective moral system you have to have in your pocket THE objective moral code. Do you really have something like that? Where from ? ? I'm open to persuasion. PS: when you see more moral systems inside Christianity this is the sign that for sure there is an objective moral system out there and there is only one True Christian Church . When there are 3 main Christian Churches and ,(only 2 that come from Apostles) you can’t conclude there is no true Christian Church ? ,a logical conclusion should be there is only one true Christian Church that have continuity from Apostles and hasn’t change fundamentally since then. So, how can an outsider tell them apart? JVL

JVL If it exists then why can it not be produced, demonstrated and why is there disagreement about what it says? Can you produce this objective, moral code? For all cases? Even when many of the faithful cannot agree on what it says?

To make an objective moral statement about an objective moral system you have to have in your pocket THE objective moral code. Do you really have something like that? Where from ? ;) PS: when you see more moral systems inside Christianity this is the sign that for sure there is an objective moral system out there and there is only one True Christian Church because Christ is ONE. When there are 3 main Christian Churches and (only 2 that come from Apostles and split in 1054) you can't conclude that because there are 3 Churches that means there is no true Christian Church :) ,a logical conclusion should be there is only one true Christian Church that have continuity from Apostles and hasn't change fundamentally since then. Sandy

KF: JVL, you seem to be unaware of the reformation principle, where in real historical, going concern settings, we have pre existing circumstances. Absent radical utopian imposition which always ends in oppression as radical revolutions since 1789, 1870 and 1917 have underscored, there has to be a slow building of sensitisation and soundnes of conscience, creation of agreed consensus on responsible amelioration or reform etc. At simple level have you forgotten the result of the prohibition experiment in the US? Namely, the Mafia gained a huge boost and the law was brought into disrepute. I suggest that your side tracking issues would be best approached through the reformation principle. And we cannot but notice that the force of inescapable first duties may have been distracted from but are not cogently objected to. You seem to like to dance around actually discussing what your objective moral standard has to say about current and past issues. If one can't apply it to real world situations what use is it? And by the way: if you think your constant and invariant moral compass took centuries to guide human kind to a kinder and gentler situation that still doesn't explain why woman had to wait longer than men to be granted some of the same civil rights. JVL

JVL, you seem to be unaware of the reformation principle, where in real historical, going concern settings, we have pre existing circumstances. Absent radical utopian imposition which always ends in oppression as radical revolutions since 1789, 1870 and 1917 have underscored, there has to be a slow building of sensitisation and soundnes of conscience, creation of agreed consensus on responsible amelioration or reform etc. At simple level have you forgotten the result of the prohibition experiment in the US? Namely, the Mafia gained a huge boost and the law was brought into disrepute. I suggest that your side tracking issues would be best approached through the reformation principle. And we cannot but notice that the force of inescapable first duties may have been distracted from but are not cogently objected to. KF PS: You also conveniently side step centuries of contribution during which those ciceronian first duties as key natural law shaped the emergence of modern liberty and constitutional democracy. Failing to attend to such is a material factor in the breakdown of lawfulness and rise of suicidal nihilism and marches of folly that are increasingly obvious in our time. kairosfocus

KF: In short neighbour love is the principle behind do no harm/wrong to neighbour, thus unfolds into issues of fairness and justice. Justice being due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where one may only justly claim a right or freedom if one is manifestly in the right; there is no right to compel another to taint soul by violating sound conscience. From this outline, a whole historical flow unfolds. As say Locke noted from Hooker in his 2nd treatise on civil govt. Oh, right . . . so woman should have been granted the right to go to university, vote, own property, run a sanctioned marathon at the same time as men. That's good to know. So, why didn't it happen that way? If there is an eternal and objective moral standard then: a) it doesn't address such important issues. b) some people just didn't understand what it said. c) it says something opposite of what most advanced societies now believe. It's your standard so you tell me: what does your objective moral standard specifically say about giving women the same rights as men? I think that's important don't you? (Personally, I don't understand how it ever came to be that women were not treated the same way as men. It makes no sense. To me. But considering the historical record it's clearly been the case for thousands of years that women's rights have been a subset of men's rights. I'd just like to know how a proposed objective moral standard addresses that issue.) JVL

PPS, kindly note, too, the negative form: "for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. " kairosfocus

Thanks for the heads up Querius, here is a live link: Quantum Mind Time Flies (Backwards?) https://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/quantum-mind-time-flies-backwards And here is a live link to the experiment ANOMALOUS ANTICIPATORY BRAIN ACTIVATION PRECEDING EXPOSURE OF EMOTIONAL AND NEUTRAL PICTURES https://www.quantumconsciousness.org/sites/default/files/presentiment_0.pdf bornagain77

JVL, again, we have the branch on which we must all sit laid out, indeed listed as the seven specific first duties traceable to Cicero. I took time to give a key case from Epictetus, on right reason. I cannot but note that your erroneous denial appeals to duty to truth etc, itself. KF PS: In case you think these are not tied to traditional moral principles, I note an astute observation by St Paul, in Rom 13: "8 . . . the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." In short neighbour love is the principle behind do no harm/wrong to neighbour, thus unfolds into issues of fairness and justice. Justice being due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where one may only justly claim a right or freedom if one is manifestly in the right; there is no right to compel another to taint soul by violating sound conscience. From this outline, a whole historical flow unfolds. As say Locke noted from Hooker in his 2nd treatise on civil govt. kairosfocus

Bornagain77 @48 Your link to Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD is 404, but this looks like an interesting experiment! -Q Querius

Jerry: This issue has an history. I am certainly not recommending women not compete in marathons or vote but it’s a bogus issue. Really. First off: why were women prohibited from competing? Secondly, why did some of them fight so hard for the right to compete? Or to vote. Especially since I’m one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on people’s capability for competing in such events. Given the right testing and training history it is possible to predict a result in a race to within a small degree. For some short races to within less than a second. What does the probability of winning have to do with the right or the desire to compete? Also not too long ago most men couldn’t vote and few if any could run a marathon safely. I believe the original marathon runner died. Explain to me why women fought so hard, in many countries, against scads of opposition to acquire the right to vote? Do you think they thought: oh well, even men haven't had that ability until recently, we'll just wait 'til it's our turn? You keep brushing significant women's issues aside as if they were insignificant. What's the problem you keep saying. Hey, they can't physically match up with men anyway. You're not saying they shouldn't vote or run marathons but . . . it's a bogus issue. Why don't you ask a woman if those are bogus issues? Most importantly, ask yourself: why weren't women granted the same rights as men at the same time? JVL

Origenes, I exist, a perception of consciousness, is self-evident and objectively true. KF kairosfocus

An issue important to women at the time you just dismiss.

You seem to want to paint someone negatively. You don’t seem to realize what you are doing. This issue has an history. I am certainly not recommending women not compete in marathons or vote but it’s a bogus issue. Especially since I’m one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on people’s capability for competing in such events. Given the right testing and training history it is possible to predict a result in a race to within a small degree. For some short races to within less than a second. Also not too long ago most men couldn’t vote and few if any could run a marathon safely. I believe the original marathon runner died. jerry

KF: VL, I find your but you have not shown it ill-founded. You have not exhibited precisely what your everlasting, objective moral standard is. You have not explained how it is that many people who profess to believe in an objective moral standard still disagree on some of its implications. Show me what your objective moral standard says about women's right to vote. Or their right to go to university. Or whether woman can be priests or rabbis or imams. I suggest, you try to compose an objection that does not imply appeals to said duties: ________ . That may be instructive on the inescapability issue. I suggest you engage with some real world issues to see if your ideal, objective standard is up to the challenge. Jerry: How is that a misogynistic reply? An issue important to women at the time you just dismiss. You left. Interesting that you phrase it as a contest not a quest for understanding. I'm still here. That’ll what I said. Exactly. Who cares about some women's rights? JVL

PPS: Here is a summary snippet:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,

1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.

Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

I suggest, you try to compose an objection that does not imply appeals to said duties: ________ . That may be instructive on the inescapability issue. kairosfocus

Nothing like a good-ole misogynistic reply

How is that a misogynistic reply?

your opponent has left the field

You left. Interesting that you phrase it as a contest not a quest for understanding.

reply is: there’s nothin’ here, what’s all the fuss about.

That’ll what I said. Meanwhile you should find KF’s OP on natural law. I will link to it but have been busy. jerry

JVL, I find your but you have not shown it ill-founded. For example above, several times, you have had a core frame for moral truth pointed out, the Ciceronian first duties of reason, a summary of core, built in law that . . . once the printing revolution and a cluster of linked developments paved the way . . . as a matter of fact has made a huge contribution to development of modern liberty and constitutional democracy as can be seen from say the 2nd para of the US DoI 1776 (note the reference to laws of nature and nature's God in para 1) and the antecedent Dutch DoI of 1581. That core frame, as your and other objections show again and again -- by inability to avoid implying such appeals to duty to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, sound conscience, neighbour so too fairness and justice etc -- is inescapable so inescapably and self-evidently true. Which, is manifestly objective. KF PS: On duty to right reason, I clip as a paradigmatic example the slightly later point made by Epictetus, likely in early C2:

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]

We here see the signature of a first principle, being a branch on which we all must sit. kairosfocus

Jerry: You know you won the argument when the other side brings up women not allowed running in a marathon as an objection. Nothing like a good-ole misogynistic reply to let you know your opponent has left the field because they can't be bothered to continue on with issues they brought up. It's typical: people down-play controversies and issues they think don't matter. Which is part of the problem. And when ever someone says: this matters, we should address it; the reply is: there's nothin' here, what's all the fuss about. JVL

You know you won the argument when the other side brings up women not allowed running in a marathon as an objection. jerry

Jerry: But we/commenters do. What does your moral standard say about giving women the right to vote? Or letting them run in marathon races? Women were not given the right to vote in the US until well into the 20th century. Women were not given the right to run in sanctioned marathon races until the 1970s; Given your objective moral standard did all religious leaders decry these obvious miscarriages of justice? Some parts work in all situations. Some work in most situations. Because it’s not 100% perfect, does not mean it doesn’t exist. You added this after I made my comments. And I'm glad for your qualifications. But there is still the question: what is your standard and can we access it when addressing current social issues? AND, if it's not 100% applicable in all cases is it universal? Is it objective? If situations dictate modification then . . . JVL

When you make a claim that you have a all-encompassing, eternally-valid, consistent moral standard but fail to exhibit it I think it’s fair to be skeptical.

But commenters do. Some parts work in all situations. Some work in most situations. Because it’s not 100% perfect, does not mean it doesn’t exist. This has all been discussed extensively over the past year and essentially ignored by some here. Look to KF’s OP on natural law as an example. jerry

Here's another way to think about it: If a physicist said: I have a unified field theory, it explains everything, it's objective, it's logical, it's true . . . you'd be completely justified in saying: okay, let's see it. And if they couldn't show you their objective, lock-solid rule what would you think? Would it matter if they made lots of arguments saying: this kind of thing must exist, logically it has to exist but they couldn't actually show you their hypothesis? Would you just buy their argument? When you make a claim that you have a all-encompassing, eternally-valid, consistent moral standard but fail to exhibit it I think it's fair to be skeptical. JVL

Vividbleau: Then to put forth the objection “how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says “is a waste of bandwidth". The two communities are fundamentally different in their practices and assumptions. Any honest scientist will admit that all scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to new data and measurements. So, the idea that our current ideas and models are only our current best approximations of some not-fully-understood complete objective truth is baked in, it's part of the standard operating procedures. But those who propose that there is some unchanging and objective moral standard don't argue or reason that way. Maybe not all of them but a lot of them argue that they KNOW a) there is such an objective moral yardstick (not shown) and b) they know what it says. There is no acknowledgement that their proposed standard might be situational or change based on data or current conditions. In that realm that's not 'objective'; that's relative and situational and subjective. So, again, where is this unchanging, objective, eternal moral standard? And why do so many people who think it exists disagree on what it says? My reason for bringing up Dr Hoyle is to show that at least one very intelligent, very ID-sympathetic cosmologist believed in an infinite past. To become a physicist of any kind requires a pretty high level of mathematical ability. Perhaps some of you would like to answer some of his arguments? JVL

@51 You didn't answer my specific question. Is "I exist" a subjective or an objective statement —— and why? And BTW I am not really interested in following the rules of some alledged common discourse, especially when they don't make much sense. Origenes

@Origenes Look at the following scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact You as being a decisionmaker, belong in category 1. The spirit making choices is subjective. You as being a creation, the created body, are objective, category number 2. Remembering that subjective means, that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means that it is identified with a 1 to 1 corresponding model. That's how it works in common discourse. That is the logic underlying ordinary subjective statements, like to say, "I find this painting beautiful", and ordinary objective statements, like to say, "there is a camel out back". Again, don't fantasize anything about how it works, only follow the rules used in common discourse. mohammadnursyamsu

@ 44 Mohammadnursyamsu According to you there are some simple rules to follow. Enlighten me. Is my knowledge that I exist objective or subjective knowledge —— and why? If that knowledge is subjective, I put it to you that all knowledge is subjective, and that "objective" has lost its meaning. Origenes

Finding quantum correlations to be present "in a wide range of important biomolecules" is simply astonishing, as well as being completely unexpected, and devastating, to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists. As the following article states, "Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, 'In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.'

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

The implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, 'in every important biomolecule' in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is, unfortunately, no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

Thus in conclusion, the moral argument for God does now indeed have some fairly impressive empirical evidence behind it that satisfies Kant's criteria of a beyond space and time influence. Moreover the empirical evidence that provided a 'quantum mechanism' to satisfy Kant's criteria for how we possibly could have a moral intuition that transcends space and time, also ends up providing fairly strong empirical evidence for a transcendent component to our being, i.e. evidence for a 'soul', that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. All in all, the Christian Theist is, once again, found to be sitting pretty as far as empirical science itself is concerned, and the Darwinian atheist is, once again, found to be left holding nothing but his irrational animosity towards a Being, i.e. God. he claims not to believe in, (i.e. the atheist is very much like someone claiming not to believe in pink unicorns, but none-the-less, harboring a deep animosity towards them. :) )

Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?

bornagain77

Origenes at 43, in regards to the claim that "Morality & ethics act upon us from a realm independent from us", it might interest you to know that Immanuel Kant held the moral argument for God to be one of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God, but also held that, "the objective reality of the Idea of God, as moral author of the world, cannot be established by physical purposes alone. But nevertheless, if the cognition of these (physical) purposes is combined with moral purposes, they are of great importance to the practical reality of the Idea (of God)."

"the objective reality of the Idea of God, as moral author of the world, cannot be established by physical purposes alone. But nevertheless, if the cognition of these (physical) purposes is combined with moral purposes, they are of great importance to the practical reality of the Idea (of God)." - God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum. - 8:03 minute mark https://youtu.be/EQOwMX4bCqk?t=483

In short, as Dr Suarez explained in the video, Kant’s requirement for the moral argument for God to be considered valid was that influences could somehow arise from outside space-time. And as Dr. Saurez also demonstrated, via advances in quantum mechanics, Kant's requirement that influences could somehow arise from outside space-time for the moral argument for God to be considered valid has now been met via quantum non-locality. But to go even further than 'just' proving that influences can arise from outside space-time, (and thus meeting Kant's requirement for the moral argument for God to be considered valid), and to add even more weight that God is the 'moral author of the world', in the following study it was found that. "Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional" and that "People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental".

Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012 Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-moral-instant-emotional-brain.html

Although that is pretty good as far as it goes, Kant's requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid was that (moral) influences could arise from outside space-time. And although quantum non-locality, as Dr. Suarez noted in his video, certainly establishes the fact that influences can arise outside of space-time, Kant's requirement has been met in an even more, shall we say, 'direct' fashion. Specifically, in the following study, when subjects were randomly shown violent or sexual images on a computer screen, the researchers "found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli (appeared on the screen)."

Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response. They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html

Moreover, the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 found that, when testing "arousing vs. neutral stimuli" that "if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes, (of 'arousing' stimuli), between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,"

Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm

And here is a link to the meta-analysis itself so you can see for yourself just how strong the conclusion for 'anomalous anticipatory activity' actually is,

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis - 2012 Excerpt: This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect.,,, To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size ,,,, Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

Thus, Kant’s criteria for accepting the validity of the moral argument for God has now been met on two levels. First, it has been met by showing that there are indeed influences arising from outside space-time as he had stipulated, and secondly, and more importantly, it has been more 'dramatically' met by showing that the human body itself possesses moral intuitions that transcend space and time. Moreover, in the preceding paper one of the researchers remarked that 'we can't explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent 'quantum biological findings' could potentially make sense.'… And indeed, exactly as she thought, 'quantum biological findings' do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they even happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

,,, not only do 'quantum biological findings' shed light on how 'anomalous anticipatory activity" can be possible, but 'quantum biological findings' go much further than that and establish that humans possess a transcendent 'quantum' component to their being on the molecular level of their material bodies that is not reducible to materialistic explanations. That is to say, findings from quantum biology now give us experimental evidence strongly suggesting we do indeed have a transcendent 'soul' that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies just as Christians have held all along. Specifically, in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,”

Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

bornagain77

Vivid, to so object JVL inescapably appeals to Ciceronian first duties of reason, as I noted. The self referentiality is fatal. KF kairosfocus

JVL “Obviously the objective truth about some things that objectively exist is disputed; just look at cosmology” Then to put forth the objection “how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says “is a waste of bandwidth. Vivid vividbleau

From over 15 years ago

I have often said here that if ID ever wins the day then the real food fight would begin. It would be a religious debate and this site would then be of no use so it would take place elsewhere. But such debates have been going on for over 2000 years so it would not be new.

Arguing there is no truth is much different than arguing we can not discern the truth. The latter leads to endless non ending discussions. But is much different that being able to argue that certain beliefs/approaches lead to much better outcomes as opposed to believing nothing is objective leads to a better outcome. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/ernst-mayr-at-the-millennium-a-study-in-misplaced-triumphalism/#comment-50559. That was over 680,000 comments ago. People over the ages have choses the approach that certain beliefs lead to much better outcomes. Few thought they were perfect beliefs. Maybe this world is designed to have such a situation. That is there can never be perfect agreement on what is. jerry

@Origenes, and all the rest. You are just displaying a dislike, rejection, and ignorance, of subjectivity in general. How subjectivity works can be found, by looking at the rules used with subjective words in common discourse, like the word "beautiful". You cannot just fantasize how subjectivity works, or fantasize how objectivity works. We already have rules in common discourse, follow the rules! mohammadnursyamsu

What does it mean for morality & ethics to have an “objective existence”? Two possible answers to that question: A: Morality & ethics act upon us from a realm independent from us; in a way similar to how physical laws operate. Their existence is not ‘carried’ by us; it is independent from us. B: Morality & ethics come from us, it is what we all agree on, given a certain level of social awareness. It is very similar as to how we all agree on “I think therefore I am”, “2 + 2 = 4”, “A = A”, and so on. I strongly disagree with the notion that option B is necessarily ‘subjective’. I would argue that we all arrive at roughly the same moral laws—— given a certain level of social awareness——, just as we all arrive at the same mathematical and logical truths——given a certain level of intellectual awareness. This is how things work, because, at a fundamental level, we are all similar beings. “I think therefor I am” is beyond my subjective opinion. I exist objectively. However, this knowledge certainly does not come from a realm independent from me. This is the crux of my argument: knowledge does not have to come from a source independent from me, in order for it to be “objective”. On the contrary, this objective knowledge springs from and is ‘carried’ by me. Origenes

Creationism says morality is subjective. The morality of any chosen option is in reference to the agency making the choice, the spirit. Which spirit is inherently subjective. And subjective meaning that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact People may be confused that subjective means fantasized. There is just a part of reality that is subjective, the part that makes the choices. It's not the same as fantasy. Then there are the atheists who redefine subjectivity without reference to the inherently subjective spirit. The atheist idea of subjetivity is meaningless, it is just a subcategory of objectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

Whatever JVL, given that you presented nothing other than your own personal opinion to counter my post, (and your personal opinion is, well, your personal opinion), I am quite satisfied to let my clarification of the irresolvable 'teleological problem' that Darwinists have with biology stand on its own merits. I am quite confident that readers can readily differentiate for themselves who is being forthright and who is blowing smoke. bornagain77

PS: Hoyle was wrong about his steady state views, not only empirically defeated by microwave background etc. There is a logic of structure and quantity issue that no stepwise, finite stage successive process can span an explicit or implicit transfinite gamut. This is most easily seen by setting the span of reals in the wider span of hyperreals, R*, which will readily lead to the problem of transfinite, stepwise traverse being an unattainable supertask. One can talk about a past that extends without limit, just as one can talk about a square circle. The problem is to actually implement such, frustrated by logic of being issues. kairosfocus

JVL:

I’m not the one making a claim. I’m merely asking: how can there be an objective moral standard when no one can agree what it says about certain topics?

Do you not notice how many implicit appeals to known first duties of reason are implicit in just this snippet? "I am not making a claim," is a claim that something is the actual case and implies duty to acknowledge its alleged truth. Obviously, it is an error. The onward implication, that we are duty bound to reason rightly and meet due burdens of proof appeals to duties to right reason, warrant and prudence. All of which further imply appeals to sound conscience, to be responsive to duty. And more. Your argument in miniature collapses, inescapably exemplifying what it would object to. Next, global or local intersubjective agreement cannot be a sound criterion of truth, warrant, objectivity as there are many cases of agreement in error on one hand and of disagreement where one party does have the better of the case on the merits on the other. Where, in fact, I have laid out seven ciceronian first duties that are in fact inescapable in objections and arguments. Your argument in miniature and its embedded claims exemplify precisely those duties. I have pointed to Cicero to note just how long the matter has been on record. Where, the now widely touted moral relativism and subjectivism behind the cited argument -- while too often taken as a new gospel -- are hopelessly self-defeating. I cite:

Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

KF kairosfocus

BO'H, whether something is or is not sexually prurient, exploitive, degrading, victimising, contributing to moral turpitude etc has an element of judgement, i.e. prudence in it -- as does anything of consequence engaged at professional level. At the same time, just to make your appeal you are unable but to implicitly turn on known duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and justice, etc. That inescapability regarding Ciceronian first duties of reason . . . see De Legibus . . . implies inescapable truth, truth that is certain, knowable and objective; which is also of moral character, even, built-in law of our rational, responsible, significantly free human nature. Law that is a pivot of sound civilisation. Indeed, these truths are self-evident and prior to proofs and objections to proofs. If you doubt, try to state your objections without implicitly turning on such appeals. I confidently predict, you cannot. KF kairosfocus

Vividbleau: Hers is a novel idea , how about answering my question? Why faff around with semantics? Obviously the objective truth about some things that objectively exist is disputed; just look at cosmology. But someone is claiming something so it seems to me that the easiest resolution for the discussion is to just produce the objective moral truth that is claimed to exist. Bornagain77: Thus JVL can deny the crucial, and illegitimate, dependence that Darwinists have on teleological language all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that there is no escaping their illegitimate use of teleological language in biological research. If their use is "illegitimate" are you saying that teleology has no place in biology? :-) Anyway, language is a crude tool for communicating scientific truths. Even mathematics has its limits. I think you're grasping at straws, cherry-picking certain phrases and usages in an attempt to force a philosophical view when that view is not required to explain the scientific process. ET: There are disagreements over written laws. Does that mean those written laws don’t exist? Hey, if someone wants to present their objective moral code I'd love it! Then we could see what it actually says. KF: JVL, did you notice how your objections implicitly appeal to and require the generally acknowledged, binding force, of duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant and broader prudence, to sound conscience etc? Have you noticed that this pattern consistently happens with those who argue or infer that it is objectively true on the subject matter of morality, that there are no objective truths regarding morality? Kindly, tell us whether or not these are inconsistencies on the part of those so objecting, and why. Hey, I'm not the one making a claim. I'm merely asking: how can there be an objective moral standard when no one can agree what it says about certain topics? Perhaps you'd like to address that issue? Oh, by the way . . . from Wikipedia's article on Dr Fred Hoyle:

While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument). Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State theory. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is—the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.

And yes, let's remember, he was a staunch supporter of some kind of intelligent design. JVL

I’m sure Justice Potter Stewart would have liked to have had you advising him in 1964.

Doubtful. I was only 6.

And your advice probably wouldn't have been any worse. Sorry, cheap shot. But my point was that the decision about whether anything is pornographic is subjective (as Judge Stewart) was acknowledging. In which case, it does not exist by your statement. It's weird that you agree with me, especially as you then say that the now non-existent pornography "exemplifies a loss of morals and ethics." From which I can only conclude that anything that "exemplifies a loss of morals and ethics" does not exist (at least according to you), and that we live in an exceedingly Panglossian world. Bob O'H

JVL, did you notice how your objections implicitly appeal to and require the generally acknowledged, binding force, of duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant and broader prudence, to sound conscience etc? Have you noticed that this pattern consistently happens with those who argue or infer that it is objectively true on the subject matter of morality, that there are no objective truths regarding morality? Kindly, tell us whether or not these are inconsistencies on the part of those so objecting, and why. KF kairosfocus

Bornagain77, Thank you for the detailed comment and links to additional source’s much appreciated. Seekers

Bob O'H:

I guess that must hold for pornography too.

Your guess is not an argument. But yes, pornography exemplifies a loss of morals and ethics.

I’m sure Justice Potter Stewart would have liked to have had you advising him in 1964.

Doubtful. I was only 6. ET

There are disagreements over written laws. Does that mean those written laws don't exist? ET

To clean up any confusion that JVL, (purposely :) ), tried to create about the impossibility of biologists doing their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose, I will list a few notes: In the following article Stephen Talbott challenges biologists to "pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness",

The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm

Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford, also stated that "it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”

“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/

This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”

Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161

Moreover, the following 2020 research article found that, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”

Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/

Moreover, to make their illegitimate use of teleological language all the more devastating for Darwinists, it turns out that it is the ‘narrative gloss' of evolution itself that can be readily jettisoned from, and/or replaced in, research papers without negatively effecting the scientific research of the papers. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.”

“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

And as the following article found, after they jettisoned the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations, the science in papers "not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful."

No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? – December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/

In short, unlike their use of teleological language, the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations simply is not needed in order for researchers to do their research into biology. Indeed, Darwinian ideas simply have not advanced any fields of science. As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

And as Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, ""While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).

Shoot, even arch-Darwinist Jerry Coyne himself honestly admitted that Darwinian ideas have been, basically, useless in so far as advancing any science:

“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)

Thus JVL can deny the crucial, and illegitimate, dependence that Darwinists have on teleological language all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that there is no escaping their illegitimate use of teleological language in biological research. Whereas, on the other hand, the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations can be easily stripped away without any loss of explanatory power, in fact, as was shown in one of the articles I cited, removing the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations actually makes the science "healthier and more useful." In summary, the teleological nature, i.e. goal directed purpose, of the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are describing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution and provides compelling evidence that life is indeed infused with meaning and purpose. Moreover, since biological life is itself, from top to bottom, infused with 'goal directed purpose', then that means that we ourselves can be extremely confident that our own lives must necessarily have a deeper purpose and meaning to them, and that our live are not completely meaningless and purposeless as Darwinists hold.

Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

bornagain77

JVL, Thanks for clearing that up. I did see the typo and presumed it meant teleological, but thanks none the less for clarifying. Seekers

Vividbleau @24,

Since when does disagreement about something’s objective existence mean it does not objectively exist?

Obviously, this question requires a theleological answer (snicker) assuming that anything that's non-materialistic by definition does not actually "exist" in fact. Elements in this set include - Love - Faith - Justice - Logic - Mathematics . . . -Q Querius

JVL “If it exists then why can it not be produced” Hers is a novel idea , how about answering my question? Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau: Since when does disagreement about something’s objective existence mean it does not objectively exist? If it exists then why can it not be produced, demonstrated and why is there disagreement about what it says? Can you produce this objective, moral code? For all cases? Even when many of the faithful cannot agree on what it says? Seekers: What is your definition of teleology? From Wikipedia: Teleology (from ?????, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and ?????, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason') or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause. A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic. But, generally, on this forum I use it to mean something explained by the wishes or actions of a deity. In response #23 above I meant to say "theological" when I typed "theleogical" which clearly doesn't make sense. JVL

Bornagain77 @19,

“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane

I love that quote! So honest for a change. The fact is that objective morality was delivered to us in Torah, including the 10 Commandments. Certainly other societies came up with similar codes, demonstrating a very fundamental human desire for some basic universal truths. But there are indeed more subjective expressions of morality often expressed in societal norms such as monogamy and etiquette. In addition, there are personal convictions that are no less sincerely and deeply held, such as being a vegetarian, not drinking alcohol, or clothing practices. I know from a long-time Christian missionary to Papua New Guinea that members of a former headhunting tribe told my friend that even when they were celebrating a great victory over a neighboring tribe and were feasting on their most noble slain warriors, that they could not understand why they always felt bad afterwards. After many of them came to the Christian faith, he let the tribes themselves sort out the details. He only introduced two practices that had the effect of increasing the average lifespan in that tribe about 10 years. Anyone want to guess what they were? -Q Querius

JVL, What is your definition of teleology? Seekers

JVL “ how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says “ Since when does disagreement about something’s objective existence mean it does not objectively exist? Vivid vividbleau

Bornagain77: As I said, I’ll let my post stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the points I made. If you're happy to not address my queries: how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says AND how is testing perceived patterns for robustness theleological; then I'm happy to agree you chose not to even attempt to answer those things. Plus you can't even begin to explain if math is designed how it could have been designed differently. You just assert things and then avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues that cast doubt on your faith-based assertions. Again, here's a mathematical example. It has been proven that any map can be coloured so that no 'country' borders another country with the same colour with at most four colours. Now, do you seriously think that some designer sat down with their advisors and thought: gosh, how many colours should it be? Three? Four? Five seems better . . . hmm . . . how do we pick? JVL

Sev, strawman. Oddly, to make your objection (which is indirectly against first duties of reason) you implicitly appealed to said first duties, again inadvertently showing that they are inescapable, inescapably true -- so, certain, objective and known -- first principles of responsible reason. KF kairosfocus

As I said, I'll let my post stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the points I made. bornagain77

Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, you apparently want to argue over disagreements some Christians have on morality rather than if objective morality exists or not,,,, which is what the post is about, which reveals that you yourself really have an anti-Christian agenda rather than any desire to seek the truth of if objective morality exists or not. I'm wondering how an objective morality could exist if those who believe it exists cannot agree on what it says. Can you address that point please. You also claim that Darwinists are not really illegitimately using words that directly imply teleology. That is a patently false claim. I said I don't see how pattern recognition and testing the proposed patterns has anything to do with teleology. You pick and choose quotes that support your view without actually addressing my particular points. I will let my posts stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the claims I made, via biological science, for the existence of objective morality, and for real purpose and meaning for our lives.. Again, if there is an objective morality then why is there no universal agreement as to what it says? You can't just keep saying one exists if you can't definitively state what it says beyond any doubt for a given issue. Consider this: why are there so many different Christian denominations and branches if they are all referencing the same, universal, common, objective morality? Shouldn't there only be one church, one doctrine? Again, exploring possible patterns has nothing to do with design. Think about mathematics. I think mathematics is universal and true everywhere at all times. Do you think the fact there there are discoverable theorems and results (not appealing to any kind of deity) means the whole system had to be designed? If so that means there must be at least one other way mathematics could be set up. Can you suggest another way math could work? Cherry picking quotes doesn't address the questions. You've convinced yourself but that doesn't mean you're correct. JVL

Whatever JVL, you apparently want to argue over disagreements some Christians have on morality rather than if objective morality exists or not,,,, which is what the post is about, which reveals that you yourself really have an anti-Christian agenda rather than any desire to seek the truth of if objective morality exists or not. You also claim that Darwinists are not really illegitimately using words that directly imply teleology. That is a patently false claim.

“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane

So again, whatever JVL, I will let my posts stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the claims I made, via biological science, for the existence of objective morality, and for real purpose and meaning for our lives.. bornagain77

Bornagain77: JVL are you claiming that disagreements among Christians over moral issues is evidence that objective morality does not really exist? I'm suggesting it's compelling evidence that there is no clear, objective Christian moral standard. Your arguments that one exists dodge addressing this point. If you cannot address all of the criticisms then, perhaps, your hypothesis is not correct. i.e. if purpose and meaning really do not exist for our lives, as Darwinists claim, then why in blue blazes is it impossible for Darwinian biologists to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose? I don't think that detecting possible patterns in data and testing those patterns to see under what conditions they hold up implies any kind of teleology; especially because sometimes the suspected patterns turn out to be false. What does that say about your assumption of underlying theology? Sometimes it's wrong? If it's wrong sometimes then can it said to be overall true? Anyway, back to my point: Christians can't seem to agree on what their objective moral standard is. I can't argue against something you cannot exhibit. JVL

JVL are you claiming that disagreements among Christians over moral issues is evidence that objective morality does not really exist? If so, you are once again (purposely?) missing the main point of my post, To repeat, as stated in post 6,,,

multicellular life would not even exist if the molecular level of life was not based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. Namely, if cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist. In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place.

Moreover, I could, (directly contrary to Darwinian claims that our lives have no real purpose and meaning), also argue, via biological science, that our lives really do have purpose and meaning by the very fact that it is impossible for Darwinian biologists themselves to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734700 i.e. if purpose and meaning really do not exist for our lives, as Darwinists claim, then why in blue blazes is it impossible for Darwinian biologists to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose? This stunning disconnect between the claims and actions on the part of Darwinists is, for all intents and purposes, a direct contradiction in logic on the part of Darwinists that renders their claim for a purposeless existence null and void. bornagain77

Seversky states,

I am not aware of any advance in science that has supported the existence of an objective morality.

Yet Seversky, being a Darwinist, would not know empirical evidence that either validates or falsifies a theory if it bit him on the rear end. i.e. All evidence that falsifies core Darwinian precepts is simply ignored by Darwinists, such as Seversky. For instance:

1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Darwinism vs. Falsification - list and link to defence of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

bornagain77

Kairosfocus/7

PS: Seversky, that also means these duties are knowable, certain, objective. To try to deny or dismiss them forces one to appeal to them, undercutting the objection instantly. Self-evident by inescapability. One trying to demonstrate from imagined prior principles will run into the same issue, these are prior to proofs and arguments, they are the branch on which we all must sit so it is wise not to try to saw it off. Core moral first truths are objective and frame responsible reason, community life, governance, law and government.

The text of The Lord of the Rings is knowable with certainty but that does not mean any of the people or places in the narrative have any objective existence. I think there is not too much difference between us in terms of what we would regard as immoral behavior. The real difference is the claim by Christians that their morality has some objective foundation because, let's be clear, when people here talk about objective morality they are not talking about Islam, Buddhism, Taoism or Sikhism, they mean Christianity. In other words, it is an improper attempt by Christianity to annex the moral high ground for themselves. Seversky

Bornagain77: Well, while minor moral issues are certainly debated within the Christian community . . . Some would say that some of the debated issues are far from minor. And, minor or major, the fact that some moral issues are not agreed upon by professed Christians, present and past, seems to imply that there is no clear, objective Christian morality. JVL

Bornagain77/5

In answering the question of whether morality is objective and real, as Christians hold, or whether it is subjective and illusory, as atheists hold, the Christian, due to advances in science, no longer has to rely solely on obviously real moral principles, i.e. that it is objectively wrong to “kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews”, but can now also appeal to empirical evidence to establish the fact that morality is indeed an objectively real fact of life and that it is not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds.

I am not aware of any advance in science that has supported the existence of an objective morality. We can hold that rape and murder are breaches of our common moral code without any need for it to be objective. All that is required is that we agree that we would rather not be raped or murdered and would rather that it didn't happen to those we love or, indeed, any other human being. Otherwise, it sounds like you are saying you would not know rape or murder are bad things unless your God had told you. Is that what you are really saying?

Most people think that the atheist’s view of morality is just one of, as Dawkins himself put it, ‘pitiless indifference’,

Dawkins was talking about how the Universe appears to be, not morality.

As Charles Darwin himself put the one defining ‘general law’ of his theory, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

You seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between a description of how things are observed to be and recommendations on how we should behave towards one another. Both Darwin and Dawkins explicitly disavowed survival of the fittest as a moral basis for human society.

Moreover, not only is Darwinian morality at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but it also turns out that Darwinian morality is at ‘war’ with the science itself.

Except there is no Darwinian morality. Evolution is about how things are or came to be, not how people should behave. You cannot get 'ought' from 'is', which is what all this comes down to. Seversky

JVL: "Which makes me wonder why it is that different Christians disagree on some moral issues/topics?" Well, while minor moral issues are certainly debated within the Christian community, I will take it as a self-evidently true fact that anybody claiming to be a Christian who kills innocent people, rapes babies, or exterminates Jews, is obviously not a real Christian. i.e. "having a form of godliness but denying its power."

2 Timothy 3:2-5 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!

Moreover, I note that JVL did not address the meat of my argument but instead digressed. Once again, the meat of my argument for the objective reality of morality is the fact that, as stated in post 6,,,

multicellular life would not even exist if the molecular level of life was not based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. Namely, if cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist. In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place.

bornagain77

Do morality or ethics have any objective existence?

If they don’t then morality and ethics don’t exist. The concepts of a subjective morality and subjective ethics are total nonsense.

I guess that must hold for pornography too. I'm sure Justice Potter Stewart would have liked to have had you advising him in 1964. Bob O'H

Bornagain77: In answering the question of whether morality is objective and real, as Christians hold, or whether it is subjective and illusory, as atheists hold, the Christian, due to advances in science, no longer has to rely solely on obviously real moral principles, i.e. that it is objectively wrong to “kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews”, but can now also appeal to empirical evidence to establish the fact that morality is indeed an objectively real fact of life and that it is not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds. Which makes me wonder why it is that different Christians disagree on some moral issues/topics? Both in the current day and compared to their historical antecedents. JVL

seversky:

Do morality or ethics have any objective existence?

If they don't then morality and ethics don't exist. The concepts of a subjective morality and subjective ethics are total nonsense. ET

BO'H, you too. KF kairosfocus

Notice Dillahunty's implicit, inescapable underlying appeal to duties to truth and right reason, warrant etc? That's a clue that objectors to first duties find themselves unable to avoid appealing to what they would overthrow. That is, pervasive first principles that are inescapable and inescapably true. Self evidence, yet again. Our responsible, rational freedom is inescapably morally governed, minds are inherently moral and these first duties are moral first truths that accurately describe reality. KF PS: Seversky, that also means these duties are knowable, certain, objective. To try to deny or dismiss them forces one to appeal to them, undercutting the objection instantly. Self-evident by inescapability. One trying to demonstrate from imagined prior principles will run into the same issue, these are prior to proofs and arguments, they are the branch on which we all must sit so it is wise not to try to saw it off. Core moral first truths are objective and frame responsible reason, community life, governance, law and government. kairosfocus

But to go even further in establishing the fact that morality must be objectively real in order for life to even be possible in the first place., it is also interesting to note that the highest possible morality within Christian ethics is someone giving his life so that others may live. Indeed, that is the central message of Christianity, i.e. Jesus died for us so that we might inherit eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Such self sacrificial altruistic behavior, which is central, even defining, to the Christian’s entire view of objective morality, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s one ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Yet, if it were not for such self sacrificial altruistic behavior on the molecular level of life, we simply would not even be here to argue whether morality was objectively real or not. Specifically, ‘apoptosis’, which means programmed cell death, is a necessary part of embryological development for multicellular organisms.

Apoptosis in Embryonic Development Excerpt: As cells rapidly proliferate during development, some of them undergo apoptosis, which is necessary for many stages in development, including neural development, reduction in egg cells (oocytes) at birth, as well as the shaping of fingers and,, organs in humans and other animals. Sydney Brenner, H. Robert Horvitz, and John E. Sulston received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their work on the genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/apoptosis-embryonic-development

Thus in conclusion, multicellular life would not even exist if the molecular level of life was not based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. Namely, if cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist. In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Of supplemental note

Darwin's predictions - altruism - Cornelius Hunter Conclusions "Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false.,,," https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism

bornagain77

In answering the question of whether morality is objective and real, as Christians hold, or whether it is subjective and illusory, as atheists hold, the Christian, due to advances in science, no longer has to rely solely on obviously real moral principles, i.e. that it is objectively wrong to "kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews", but can now also appeal to empirical evidence to establish the fact that morality is indeed an objectively real fact of life and that it is not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds. In laying this 'scientific' fact out, it is first necessary to lay out, precisely, exactly what the Darwinian view of morality actually is. Most people think that the atheist's view of morality is just one of, as Dawkins himself put it, 'pitiless indifference',

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Yet, contrary to what Dawkins himself apparently believed, morality for the Darwinian atheist is not just the absence of morality, (i.e. amorality, ‘pitiless indifference’), but turns out to be, (when you throw the precepts of Darwinian evolution on top of the atheist’s worldview of ‘pitiless indifference’), a worldview that turns out to be completely antithetical to any sense of objective morality that we may have as Christians, or even any sense of objective morality that we may have as simply being decent human beings. As Charles Darwin himself put the one defining ‘general law’ of his theory, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

As should be obvious to everyone who is not a complete psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, i.e. pitilessly indifferent, but it is, in fact, completely ANTI-moral. Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I think even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”

“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak.

Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” - Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

Hitler was hardly the only genocidal maniac who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, who murdered tens of millions of their own people, in fact, all those tyrants based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the 'ANTI-morality' inherent therein.

Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology – July 2020 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

Moreover, not only is Darwinian morality at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but it also turns out that Darwinian morality is at ‘war’ with the science itself. Namely, if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where ‘blind pitiless’ evolution ruled and only the ‘strongest’ are allowed to survive. The logic of "Darwinian morality', (or shall we say the 'illogic' of Darwinian morality), is nicely summed up in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient, reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? As Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:

The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

As you can see in the preceding graph, any other function besides successful, and efficient, reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruistic behavior (i.e. the ‘strong’ taking care of the ‘weak’), would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, and/or viruses, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Yet, contrary to this central anti-moral ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption that lies behind Darwinian theory, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers, since it directly contradicted Darwinian assumptions, said that they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the mutual cooperation that they had found amongst bacteria. They even went so far as to state, ,,, “Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”

Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

And as the following study found, “‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole.”

Friendly bacteria collaborate to survive – 10 October 2019 Excerpt: New microbial research at the University of Copenhagen suggests that ‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies. https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2019/10/friendly-bacteria-collaborate-to-survive/

Again, this ‘survival of the friendliest’ is, morally and scientifically speaking, directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s primary ‘general law’ of his theory of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper into the molecular level of life, the 'scientific' falsification of the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ morality occurs at the molecular level too. Richard Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but 'selfish' as Dawkins himself held. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (which is the very antithesis of Richard Dawkins’s entire ‘selfish gene’ concept).

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747

Such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be. And I would even hold that, besides scientifically falsifying a central tenet of Darwin's theory, such holistic cooperation between genes also offers us compelling scientific evidence that morality must be objectively real in order for life to even be possible in the first place. bornagain77

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Well, but that can't be the Tao of the Tao Te Ching: the first line it "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao". In other words (in this context) it is subjective. Bob O'H

Is There Such A Thing As Morality Or Ethics?

Yes, there are. Do morality or ethics have any objective existence? No, they don't. Seversky

The headline and the discussion under it are not in sync. The discussion is a long rambling list of excerpts from the Egnor/Dillahunty debate and morality is only a part. Dillahunty Is incoherent in his arguments. Debates on the existence/non existence of God will never be decisive. Did God make it that way? Is it part of the fabric of creation? It comes down to what is the evidence for or against. As far as I can see there is no evidence that supports the against side other than the evidence for the existence side is not 100% definitive. The atheist has no evidence that contradicts the coherence of the universe argument. It’s just that the creator personally doesn’t show his presence in any undeniable way. jerry

Well, of course. Evolution, properly understood, generates moral laws. Any action that helps the ENTIRE POPULATION survive is moral, and becomes written in the scriptures (genes.) Over the centuries our scriptures have accreted a lot of unnecessary details because they were edited by bureaucracies, but the basic principles of every moral system are based on survival of the POPULATION. The problem isn't Darwin, the problem is the Nietzsche/Rand Darwinists who have reframed the principle to favor the single all-powerful Ubermensch/Atlas/Bezos. polistra