>>16520386
read Nietzsche, faggot

>>16520386
Marxism

People yelling at you and throwing you in prison when you do something wrong

>>16520386
atheist nations are safer than religious ones, religion isn't the dividing factor for how people act

>>16520421
Marxism is a derivative of Abrahamism, like Wokeism.

>>16520386
We already have it, it’s called rule of law. It’s based on science, empiricism, and rationalism.

Aperahamic faggotry has nothing to do with it.

>>16520386
Start with Ancient Greeks.

>>16520386
Might makes Right/Vae Victus
Oddly enough Might makes Right is already objective morality that exists in the world today

>>16520386
Might makes right
Ironically, the logical conclusion of such a thing would be God
doesn’t mean we know his attributes or if he needs worshipping

>>16520561
This

File: CCED0377-585B-4639-94AF-5(...).gif (3.4 MB, 588x588)

3.4 MB GIF

>>16520561
>science, empiricism, and rationalism
>objective
it’s objective in the sense that it’s an agenda-pushing propagandist truth obfuscator

>>16520766
Such as?

>>16520386
objective morality is empathy. most christcucks do not have natural empathy, hence why they mostly cannot fathom morality in the absence of a god having laid it out for them

>>16520807
>objective morality is based on subjective emotional whimsy
can’t make this shit up lmfaooo

>>16520817
>christcuck doesn't understand the concept of empathy
many such cases, hilarious

File: F9_vuCDXIAA3Fg8.jpg (32 KB, 568x339)

32 KB JPG

>>16520817
>"objective" morality is in fact subjective
Yes. Also, it's genetic. >>16520467

>>16520386

Do you watch porn OP? Remember, lying is a sin.

>>16520386
Eudaimonism. Is -> ought. Reject Hume, return to Aristotle.

>>16520386
With a godless morality, the one who you fear to do the correct thing is yourself. So why should you be trusted to do the right thing when you think nobody is looking? If an opportunity presents itself for you to get away with doing something immoral that would greatly benefit you and the only person you fear disappointing or angering is yourself, you will likely do it.

When you understand that God exist, the fear of Him is what keeps you from doing shady things in secret. Someone who fears God can be trusted to do the right thing way more than a godless person.

>>16520467
>atheist nations are safer than religious ones
For people who love doing wicked things. Not for the righteous. The righteous are persecuted in Atheist nations. A safe and peaceful nation is one in which the wicked fears the justice of the righteous.

>>16520561
The rule of law has nothing keeping people doing the right thing when nobody is looking. That is why most judges in the rule of law are bought and paid for and live off of bribes and favors. They set the guilty free for a fee and do not do justice to the innocent. Because they do not believe there is someone above them who will judge them for the things they do in secret. A god-fearing judge under the law of God takes no bribes and do justice to whoever deserves it.

>>16520386
There isn't one. The most you'll get is that the government will objectively decide what is right. Objective morality needs something or someone to have objective authority to decide objective morality. Without that, it's not any more different than just stating an opinion on how things ought to be.

>>16520386
like secular humanism
>>16520467
china isn't safe
dprk might be
cuba ... eh

>>16521418
What's the justification for secular humanism? Why should I care about my fellow humans?

>>16521423
why should anyone care about you
go die in a ditch then. nobody will care.

>>16520386
God isn't real, the supposed morality derived from him is not objective, cringe.

>>16521432
I don't expect people to care about me. I hate all collectivist ideologies outside of globalism after realizing that they are hypercritical (There's no way to morally justify the preferential treatment of your in group over an out group.)

>>16521474
"I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world." That is how you justify it.

>>16521529
Why would I care about my brothers more than my cousins than the world though? Because they're closer? What about the brothers I don't like?

>>16521576
Yes, because they are closer and because they are your kind, despite everything.
Go just kill yourself already. More world for the rest of us. Humans are political animals; ie, those who need community and those who must build communities.

>>16521586
>Yes, because they are closer and because they are your kind, despite everything.
Why would I care if they are closer?
>Go just kill yourself already.
Why would I do that?
>More world for the rest of us. Humans are political animals; ie, those who need community and those who must build communities.
Not necessarily. Why should I help you build a community? Why not just be s total parasite or do the barebones effort to keep the lights on?

>>16521604
>Why would I care if they are closer?
already answered that; not my fault you're stultifyingly autistic or just fucking stupid

>>16521608
No. You're just dumb for not thinking about this for one second. Does this mean that if your brother steals all your money, then they should be punished less than some random person?

>>16520386
the natural emergence of pagan virtues as paganism is not theistic in the way Christianity (and the other two of the big three) is.
There is a lot more of the innate spirit of man in them, this is imperfect by Christian standards, it is also offensive to the liberal west who's morality is either a hold over from Christianity or the result of judaic imposition.

>>16520417
My basic understanding is that master morality, according to Nietzsche, is simply "Whatever is good for myself and my group, whatever allows myself and my group to thrive, is good, and whatever doesn't is bad."

Your should care about your brother because he is closer to you.
I mean that in multiple ways, closer geographically, closer emotionally, what he does affects your life way more than someone far removed.
This is so simple, I don't know why it needs to be said.

Presumably you care about some of this. If you don't, there's nothing to be said. It's not like you *should* care about, stuff you don't care about.
It's just that most people care about these things.

>>16520386
Something built into the human genome as Sam Harris proposes

>>16521690
Harris is such a mental turd
Morality concerns what we *should* and *shouldn't* do

If Harris means something else, he should use another word.

>>16521674
Wait, so if someone moves away from your town, does that mean they instantly become lesser value to you? What if you find out later that they aren't actually your brother? Do you treat them like a stranger?

>>16521750
Look, try to not take is so literally
Brother in this context means in-group

It was meant as a response to another post (which I failed to reply to) as to why care more about my in-group, rather than my out-group

>>16520467
nazi germany

USSR

Mao China

Every communist country of the 20th century

dejavu

>>16520807
Empathy is overrated. Most people aren’t worthy of it, especially women

look everyone
>>16520817
>>16522177

shaped like an egg

>>16522003
>I only treat people nicely if I like them enough to add them into my ingroup.
Doesn't seem moral to me.

>>16520561
>rule of law
Man made so not objective

File: friend good enemy bad.png (453 KB, 1400x966)

453 KB PNG

>>16522205
That's just "Friend good, enemy bad" which is natural human instinct.

>>16522249
...which is why you can't comprehend objective morality and God's Will. He made it clear by sacrificing his only begotten son to save the world that it IS possible to love everyone, even your enemies, as much as you do your own offspring.

He has risen.

>>16521342
Fearing God is no guarantee someone will be moral. Notoriously, the Catholic church during the Renaissance was for all intents and purposes one giant holy mafia .The Pope was super corrupt, despite supposedly being God's chosen on Earth! And there are countless more examples of religious people being immoral. Morality involves character, not just beliefs.

>>16521750
holy turbo autist batman!

>>16522397
The Catholic church did not worship God Almighty, they worship the pagan sun god, what makes you think they feared God if they did not believe in him? A religious person does not mean a god fearing person and a god fearing person does not have to be religious.

>>16520386
If you want to know you should just read some books about ethics that have been written by atheists. Michael Huemer's book Ethical Intuitionism is a good one.

>>16522205
However it perfectly seems to describe what we see happening in reality

>>16522316
Just because it's a &humanities board, doesn't mean that "PRAISE JESUS" is an appropriate move to make in a conversation

>>16522504
Anyway the point is that determining "good" and "bad" based on whoever and whatever you happen to like isn't exactly objective, in fact, it's subjective to human interest, so for morality to be objective it must transcend human interest.

>>16520561
>rule of law. It’s based on science, empiricism
low IQ

>>16522532
God not real, though

You can claim that objective morality can only exist if god exists. But what does objective morality founded in god's will look like? There's no consensus among believers, and god is said to be unknowable. Seems like the problem is the same either way: figuring things out and trying to cooperate with and convince others.

File: sunworship.png (2.71 MB, 2000x1334)

2.71 MB PNG

>>16522453

>>16522596
>god is said to be unknowable.
God's essence is unknowable. Not his will.

It is like asking a blind person to know the essence of red or the experience of red.

>>16522610
If god's mind is beyond our comprehension, how can you know what he truly intends? You have to believe in his will by faith, don't you?

>>16522610
>God's essence is unknowable. Not his will.
If you were wrong about this. How could you go about figuring that out?

>>16522637
We know what he intends for us, because he is good and good is truth. He is the truth. So then he gives truth sufficient for our good (which is to be one with his essence, which is good).

You are saved by faith, works, baptism, grace, and the sacraments.

>>16522651
If you were wrong about physics, how would you go about figuring that out? If you were wrong about anyhing, how would you go about figuring that out?

Are you asking for a falsifiability criterion?

To falsify these claims, of a Christian God, you show the Nicene creed is false. Jesus didnt exist, wasnt God, wasnt resurrected, etc. Another criteria is that he didnt descend from King David in lineage. You could also show this by showing King David didnt exist.

Historians have tried to do that, but all evidence points now that King David exists, Christ exists, he was crucified under pontius pilat, was buried in a tomb, etc.

In general, for epistemology. I would start with showing God probably exists. Thus, Jesus was probably ressurected.

God probably exists in the same way that any theory of science is probable.

The watchmaker argument plus with the fact that we are closer to making simulations is what I use.

If making simulations is impossible, then abiogenesis is improbable and you can just resort to the fine tuning argument.

If it is impossible to simulate something, then it is improbable the universe exists and that life exists.

If we have a way to explain everything, it should be able to be simulated, therefore apply the watchmakers argument.

God exists.

Jesus' story makes more sense to be true than not, now that God probably exists.

>>16520386
Exactly the same as "objective" morality, just with something at the top besides God. Aka utilitarianism. All morality is provisional. If morality were objective, you wouldnt be able to violate it, and thus, it would unrecognizeable as morality because there could BE no immorality.

>>16520386
Probably like the Easter bunny.

>>16522816
holy moley dude, you're just changing the topic
You made a specific claim about God

If you got no way to figure out if it's wrong. Seems like you are setting yourself up for all kinds of false beliefs

>>16522988
>You made a specific claim about God
Which claim?

That his essence is unknowable?

This comes from Christianity. You figure it out by testing Christianity.

God exists outside of time. It is impossible to know God without an oracle (the church or Jesus)

>>16522995
>You figure it out by testing Christianity.
You're such a retard, holy shit.

Your way to test Christianity was something like: Historians think King David was a real person
THEREFORE: God's essence is unknowable, but not his will
???
How are you inferring that?

>>16523073
>Your way to test Christianity was something like:

No, you have to test all claims. King David lineage, Christ existence, Pontius Pilate killing Christ, plausibility of the resurrection

Once you falsify the claims, then move on.

Otherwise, continue.

I believe the show Christianity to be true you also need to show God is probable, otherwise it is hard to infer he was ressurected.

Once you show he was resurrected, then Christianity has not been falsfied and its more likely than not.

That specific claim of unknowability comes from scripture, the eccumenical councils, or tradition.

I suppose you also show that the apostolic traditions are the best supposition supposing Christianity is true also.

You infer the truth of the claims apostolic traditions make by supposing they are the source of truth.

I am saying you suppose theyre the source of truth by inferring Christianity is true.

Protestantism can be shown to be the weakest of all the traditions for their claims of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Luther gives a falsifiability criteria in his Smalcald articles,

Article I states

"Upon this article everything that we teach and practice depends, in
opposition to the pope, the devil, and the whole world. Therefore, we must
be certain and not doubt this doctrine. Otherwise, all is lost, and the pope,
the devil, and all adversaries win the victory and the right over us."

The article is the doctrine of justification. Sourced from the Concordia.

You can show his doctrine is false as the orthodox and catholic stance are more consistent with scripture.

>>16520807
People commit many cruelties to some out of empathy for some others. That's playing out in Israel and Gaza as we speak.

>>16520817
>They hated him because he told them the truth.
I can't take the average atheist seriously knowing everything just boils down to how they feel at any given moment. The irony is people flattering themselves as thinking and feeling individuals but are actually far easier to influence.

>>16523255
>morality can't be subjective, because it makes me feel bad
Not THIS is irony

>>16523339
>morality can't be subjective, because it makes me feel bad
You said that
>Not THIS
Good morning sirs

>>16520561
>human constructs
>objective

>>16520421
Marxism as by Marx doesn't actually have a moral system(cause those are non material), it's just written in a moralistic way.

>>16521335
>Atheist nations are unsafe for the righteous and prevent us from doing righteous things such as beheading my daughters schoolteacher for being an infidel

>>16520807
Why would an Atheist believe in empathy? Who decides that empathy is what morals should be based off?

>>16523359
This thing that i am talking about, is absolutely relative, I swear.

>>16521418
>china isn't safe
if you're going by industrial accidents yeah but the crime is pretty low

>>16520386
it would look like blue-haired self-victimization earning flagellant pity points for guilt-tripping

>>16520386
I have yet to see a definition of 'objective' in this context.

>>16523920
>Why would an Atheist believe in empathy?
it's either innate or one does not have it. you don't seem to have it, given how you think one needs to 'believe in it'. you might as well have asked why would an atheist believe in digestion.

>>16520386
Google "moral realism"

>>16520386
I would assume we would go back too natural law so anything that benefits you and your family is good and anything else is bad. so for example capturing women so your sons can rape them is good because it increases reproductive success

>>16523920
>believe in empathy
nigga what are you yapping about? empathy is literally scientifically proven to exist

>>16520386
Aristotle

>>16521335
>righteous
Killing your daughter for the crime of being raped or beheading infidels is the opposite of righteous

>>16521702
He doesn't though

>>16521647
That works until hedonism comes into play and everything collapses.

>>16522084
That's why they call it disc-ussion!

>>16522543
The abbreviations list which includes Intelligence Quotient should be extended with an Intelligibilty Quotient, so that there is a meter for how comprehensible posts are. Then comprehensiveness could be rewarded and maybe people would effortpost more instead of making posts which could be interpreted as slander.

Similar to mathematical facts. Eg 2+2 = 4. This isn't a subjective truth, isn't given by God, and isn't empirical.

Similar to how abortion is wrong regardless of roastie opinion.

>>16522594
That's only the case before my first death scare.

>>16522610
The blind can read about light particles and the color spectrum in braille now, sp that illustration goes into the water.

>>16522816
Authority can be truthfully untruthful, in the case when authority doesn't know the whole story, as was the case in history sometimes, as it was presented to me, and then authority makes decision based on limited comprehension.

>>16525649
>whatever allows my group to thrive
Hedonism doesn't allow you to thrive, it's empty pleasure.

>>16525672
All I (subjectively) care about is getting an abortion, why *shouldn't* I do it?

>>16525672
How is abortion wrong?

>>16525620
If what we meant by "morality" was "reproductive success", we would just say... Reproductive success
No need for two separate terms

>>16525672
Must I wait for a church and an authority fifure to give me everything or can I just look at my fingers and see that two fingers and two fingers raised is four fingers raised, even if I call it differently in a different language, or even if I have no words for it? That was a satiric question. Every human being is gifted with reason and conscience...

>>16525690
Yeah, but in the moment when I think I've deserved it after thriving all the time, I don't know that.

>>16525694
Don't believe in people who will cherrypick parts of the Bible and tell you what's wrong or good. Don't even think about wrong or good - but that's in the Bible.

>>16525691
That's not the question though. The question is how do objective moral Truths exist, the response is they exist similar to mathematical universals. Similar to platonic forms. Whether these are action compelling FOR YOU has no bearing on whether what is objectively right or wrong.

>>16525694
I used my moral sense to apprehend the objective moral facts and comprehended the truth of killing your own children for convenience reasons being wrong

>>16520386
There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is influenced by material reality. From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal.
>>16520561
All of those terms are philosophic-cowardly pseudonyms for "God"

>>16525747
Morality concerns what we *should* and *shouldn't* do. Which makes perfect sense if was in respect to own subjective values and preferences.
I wonder why it's so hard for you (or any objective morality -enjoyer) to explain how objective morality is supposed to work

I think it's because objective morality is gibberish nonsense.
I should do something, even if I don't care about doing it? lol , how does that make sense? It doesn't

I'm still waiting for a definition of 'objective', as used itt. christards mean it as 'given by gawd', which makes the discussion pointless.

>>16525712
Yeah the Bible has potions to induce miscarriages so I don't believe it when they say God cries when you kill babies. He's ordered living ones dashed on rocks

>>16525750
>Objective moral facts
No such thing
>Killing your own children for convenience reasons
How is it any more moral to bring a child into the world to starve/be neglected/disabled/raised by unready mothers, thus suffering either a more torturous death, or inflicting their misery on others when they turn into a jerk due to a shitty upbringing?

File: Kant_gemaelde_3.jpg (149 KB, 800x1044)

149 KB JPG

Aren't you christlarpers ashamed you have the same level of moral intuition as some catholic tribe in the African bush?
Pic rel has never been topped.

>>16520386
There can be no such thing as objective morality ("objective morality" being a set of rules that tell people what they OUGHT TO DO in a given situation regardless of who they are or what they prefer) because there is no way to get OUGHT from IS that doesn't rely on subjective human preferences. You can try to wring your way around words all the way you want. It's simply not possible.
>But some preferences are shared by all humans!
No. Try to come up with some and see me come up with examples where that's not true. No preference could be said to be shared among all humans.
>But the humans who don't share those preferences don't know what's good for them! Or they're not human at all!
The first case presupposes the existence of an objective moral system. It's circular reasoning. And the second one becomes nonsense once you take it to its logical conclusion. Once consider that someone with an outward appearance and apparent (objective, dare I say) qualities of a human might not be human at all, you can't be sure if anyone except YOU is human either. You want an objective system, so it should be based on objective qualities. And when your "objective quality" is if someone wants to follow your system in the first place and you cease to consider them a human if they don't, that's a logical fallacy as well.

>>16525836
Kant admits that he needs God to tell him what to do in the first place before he can make any moral judgements. But he ultimately makes no convincing arguments as to why we should listen to God in the first place.

>>16525855
>But he ultimately makes no convincing arguments as to why we should listen to God in the first place.
God will hurt him forever if he doesn't???

>>16525855
>Kant admits that he needs God to tell him what to do in the first place before he can make any moral judgements
What? No. That's the opposite of what Kant says. He constructed his entire moral system from logic alone. That's the quintessential aspect. That reasonable persons can reason if these actions could be universalised.

>>16520386
Do what people find likeable, agreeable, pleasant and desirable. Don't do what people find unlikeable, disagreeable, unpleasant and undesirable. Do what is possible. Don't do what is impossible. Be right and not wrong.

>>16525881
Why is being hurt forever necessarily bad? If Jesus accepted getting hurt and dying for my sins, then why me getting hurt forever is bad? If I can save another person or people by damning myself in particular, why shouldn't I do that?
>But it's not real pain, it's separation from God!
Then why shouldn't I prevent someone else from getting separated from God by becoming separated from God by myself?

>>16525889
>He constructed his entire moral system from logic alone.
Kant stayed a theist until the end of his life despite rejecting many dogmas and rituals. Tell me, why would he do that if God's existence wasn't necessary for his moral system to work?

>>16525937
>Tell me, why would he do that if God's existence wasn't necessary for his moral system to work?
God and the immortality of the soul are postulates to promote moral action not as the authority of morality.
Super abbreviated:
>don't want to be robbed
>think you as a human deserve to not be robbed
>realise humanity in others and respect their human right to not be robbed
>conclude that robbing is wrong
>okay robbing is wrong but money is nice why would i not do the wrong thing
That's where for Kant things as virtue or God come in. They promote doing the right thing but cannot deduce what is right themselves.

>>16525976
>postulates to promote moral action not as the authority of morality.
Okay, and what other "postulates to promote moral action" are there? Surely there are others and God and immortality are just some of them, right? Because if those are the only ones that actually matter, that effectively makes them the authority, right?

>>16525976
>>don't want to be robbed
what if I want to? what if I'd be okay with being robbed if a person who steals from me does that to care for their dying child and is poorer than me?
>>think you as a human deserve to not be robbed
even if I don't want to get robbed, why does the preposition that no human ever deserves to get robbed follow? why should I treat others the same as myself when they are different from me?
>>realise humanity in others and respect their human right to not be robbed
humanity is an undefinable concept. there are no qualities that all humans have in common and don't share with any other living creatures
>>conclude that robbing is wrong
just because it is wrong in a particular INSTANCE doesn't always automatically make it wrong
>>okay robbing is wrong but money is nice why would i not do the wrong thing
and here we go to >>16525998

>>16520386
You can't have secular objective morality.
But if you absolutely want to assemble one, it would basically be just the "laws" of physics. You're stuck just describing the world through empirism (shit like "when you jump up, you fall down"), you can't derive any prescriptive essence from these to have objective ethics.
The problem we ultimately have is that we're trying to describe lofty emergent blobs like "morality", "consciousness", "life and death" etc, jumbling the whole thing hard. You can't have objective necessary moral laws without an omnipresent sentient entity that explicitly prescribed them to you and enforces them universally.

>>16525998
>Surely there are others and God and immortality are just some of them, right?
Yes. I mentioned virtue.
>Because if those are the only ones that actually matter, that effectively makes them the authority, right?
No. At no point in the evaluation is God's existence or nonexistence relevant to what constitutes moral actions or if we should act morally. It only helps us do.

>>16526006
>what if I want to? what if I'd be okay with being robbed if a person who steals from me does that to care for their dying child and is poorer than me?
Just give him the money then. I have no idea where you're going with this.
>>>think you as a human deserve to not be robbed
>even if I don't want to get robbed, why does the preposition that no human ever deserves to get robbed follow? why should I treat others the same as myself when they are different from me?
Because they as rational creatures have human dignity just as you have.
>>>realise humanity in others and respect their human right to not be robbed
>humanity is an undefinable concept. there are no qualities that all humans have in common and don't share with any other living creatures
No it's not. The important aspect here is rational creatures.
>>>conclude that robbing is wrong
>just because it is wrong in a particular INSTANCE doesn't always automatically make it wrong
Yes it is. That is like absolutely fundamental Kantism. He wrote entire books just to make sure everyone knows he doesn't believe in any exceptions.
>>>okay robbing is wrong but money is nice why would i not do the wrong thing
>and here we go to >>16525998 #
No we don't. We go to because they are humans. The God exists postulate is supposed to help you do what you conclude not lead to your conclusion.

>>16526038
>I mentioned virtue.
Virtue just means good behavior/trait. Good behavior/trait is a "postulate to promote moral action"? What's "moral action"? It's "good action". We should act good because it's good. Circular reasoning.
>No. At no point in the evaluation is God's existence or nonexistence relevant to what constitutes moral actions or if we should act morally. It only helps us do.
If the entire system falls apart once you remove those things, it does way more than "help". It's literally what the entire system hinges on.

>>16526038
>Just give him the money then. I have no idea where you're going with this.
But I don't know who they are or that they want to rob me. They just rob my house one day when I'm not home and I never learn who they were. But they still did that for the reason I said before. But I never learn that reason. Was what they did bad or good? Does me finding out the reason change it from bad to good or vice versa?
>They should have asked, that's what makes it bad!
So morality is derived from consent, then? But what if someone would be happier if something they owned was stolen from them or destroyed? But they don't want to let go of that thing. But I know better than them. If I force them to do that, they realize they are better off without it and thank me afterwards. Was what I did good or bad? What if they hate me afterwards instead of thanking me, even though it still made them happier? Does that make my action good or bad?
>rational creatures
>No it's not. The important aspect here is rational creatures.
Not true of all (or perhaps any) humans. Humans will make logical errors in their own reasoning all of the time, just like you.
>human dignity just as you have.
What is dignity? Do all humans have it? If so, why?
>Yes it is. That is like absolutely fundamental Kantism. He wrote entire books just to make sure everyone knows he doesn't believe in any exceptions.
I don't care if it's Kantism or whatever it is. Doesn't make it any less wrong.
>We go to because they are humans.
You've yet to actually try to define humanity. You just pointed me to another concept that needs to be defined first: dignity. So please, define dignity.

>>16526028
I'd argue that you can't have religious objective morality either. Let's say that we have religion A. Religion A believes in god X. God X has qualities a, b, c and d. What should compel someone to obey every word of god X simply because he has qualities a, b, c and d? What if I prefer different qualities that run orthogonal to a, b, c or d? Should I still listen to god X just because he has the power to damn me? Because that's just "might makes right", thus not objective.

>>16526123
>Virtue just means good behavior/trait. Good behavior/trait is a "postulate to promote moral action"? What's "moral action"?
That which rational cratures can reasonably want to be universalised .
>It's "good action".
no no no 100% no. Kant goes through great lengths to refute this. The only thing good are good intentions .
>We should act good because it's good. Circular reasoning.
Not what anyone claimed.
>>No. At no point in the evaluation is God's existence or nonexistence relevant to what constitutes moral actions or if we should act morally. It only helps us do.
>If the entire system falls apart once you remove those things, it does way more than "help".
It doesn't. You keep repeating that but you are 100% misunderstanding how this works.
>It's literally what the entire system hinges on
No. The entire system is complete without god. I have no idea what kind of crusade you're fighting here but you're picking the wrong thinker. Kant's morality is built on reason alone independent of the existence of God.

>>16525678
Well, what I was getting at was qualia. Which is a known problem. A person cannot properly describe the 'essence' of red. The actual substance.

>>16525686
>Authority can be truthfully untruthful, in the case when authority doesn't know the whole story

I do not know if I said this already, but the christian conception of God is that he is all knowing. So this argument doesn't apply

>>16526126
>Was what they did bad or good?
Bad.
>Does me finding out the reason change it from bad to good or vice versa?
No.
>They should have asked, that's what makes it bad!
>So morality is derived from consent, then?
No and I didn't say that.
>But what if someone would be happier if something they owned was stolen from them or destroyed?
Completely irrelevant to anything.
>But they don't want to let go of that thing. But I know better than them. If I force them to do that, they realize they are better off without it and thank me afterwards. Was what I did good or bad?
Bad. Kant isn't consequentialist? You're getting way off track here.
>What if they hate me afterwards instead of thanking me, even though it still made them happier? Does that make my action good or bad?
Bad. You're talking absolute nonsense.

>>16526170
He isn't. He had a whole schizo meltdown when he found out Adam ate that fucking fruit. Plato's god is allknowing christjews just stole the idea.

>>16526166
>That which rational cratures can reasonably want to be universalised .
"Can" doesn't mean "should" just like "is" doesn't mean "ought".
>no no no 100% no. Kant goes through great lengths to refute this. The only thing good are good intentions .
Intentions are subjective. You have no way of telling what others really think or feel. Therefore you have no way of knowing their intentions. Therefore your morality is not objective, it's based on your subjective judgement. The only being capable of objectively judging intentions is a being that's omniscient. Yet there's no proof that such a being exists or even that it can. But you need it for your morality to work.
>It doesn't. You keep repeating that but you are 100% misunderstanding how this works.
You've yet to explain what I'm misunderstanding.
>No. The entire system is complete without god. I have no idea what kind of crusade you're fighting here but you're picking the wrong thinker. Kant's morality is built on reason alone independent of the existence of God.
You've yet to define humanity or dignity. I'm waiting.

>>16526198
>He isn't. He had a whole schizo meltdown when he found out Adam ate that fucking fruit.

Where is evidence of him having a 'schizo' meltdown. All he did was get upset and remove their mortality. If a child rebels against you, it would be upsetting for most loving parents. The hope is that the child does well and follows your orders intended to help you- not to follow lucifer or the devil who is devoid of good.

>>16526218
>"Can" doesn't mean "should" just like "is" doesn't mean "ought".
Yes it does. it's rather complex but the gist isYou want to live in a world where lying isn't practiced because it destroys truth and meaningful conversation. If you also want to lie in an instance you are being irrational and your logic guides you to the universable action.
>>no no no 100% no. Kant goes through great lengths to refute this. The only thing good are good intentions .
>Intentions are subjective. You have no way of telling what others really think or feel. Therefore you have no way of knowing their intentions.
No YOUR intentions.
>Therefore your morality is not objective, it's based on your subjective judgement.
Yes.
>The only being capable of objectively judging intentions is a being that's omniscient. Yet there's no proof that such a being exists or even that it can. But you need it for your morality to work.
No I don't. The question if an action is moral or not is based on it's intention alone.
>>It doesn't. You keep repeating that but you are 100% misunderstanding how this works.
>You've yet to explain what I'm misunderstanding.
Kant's ethical system. You claim it is built on God which is simply untrue.
>>No. The entire system is complete without god. I have no idea what kind of crusade you're fighting here but you're picking the wrong thinker. Kant's morality is built on reason alone independent of the existence of God.
>You've yet to define humanity or dignity. I'm waiting.
Dignity for Kant steems from our capability for rational self determination. Humanity is just the practical only species that fulfills that criteria and his audience is human.

>>16526231
The point is he didn't know it hence he is not all knowing. That's a post biblical hellenic concept the jews stole.

>>16526174
>>Was what they did bad or good?
>Bad.
Why? Why does my need to have money or objects inherently outweigh their need to keep their family from dying?
>>Does me finding out the reason change it from bad to good or vice versa?
>No.
So knowledge of WHY the action was taken has no bearing on morality of an action, then?
>>They should have asked, that's what makes it bad!
>>So morality is derived from consent, then?
>No and I didn't say that.
You've implied it by saying that I should have given them the money. How am I suppose to give it to them if they don't ask for it and I might not even have any idea that they exist?
>Completely irrelevant to anything.
It's very relevant to the real world. That's how addictions work.
>Bad. Kant isn't consequentialist? You're getting way off track here.
So the consequences don't matter. But knowing WHY an action was taken doesn't matter either? What matters, then? 'Intent' as separate from 'reason'? 'Intent' as an abstract that can only be ascertained by a being with perfect knowledge?
>Bad. You're talking absolute nonsense.
I'm not talking absolute nonsense, you are. The only way for your morality to work if it's disconnected from the real world and working in terms of absolutes that can only be found out by a being that has perfect knowledge.

>>16526251
>The point is he didn't know it hence he is not all knowing.

Im asking you to prove that. I actually tried to give a counter-argument, grasping at the straws you gave me, as to why this doesn't falsify his omniscience.

>That's a post biblical hellenic concept the jews stole.

"Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure." (Ps. 147:5)

"To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether." (Ps. 139:1-4)

"Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.." (Job 37:16)

>>16526252
>Why? Why does my need to have money or objects inherently outweigh their need to keep their family from dying?
It's not your need for money it's your right to property.
>So knowledge of WHY the action was taken has no bearing on morality of an action, then?
Yes. It's a core aspect of Kant's system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_a_Supposed_Right_to_Tell_Lies_from_Benevolent_Motives
>>>They should have asked, that's what makes it bad!
>>>So morality is derived from consent, then?
>>No and I didn't say that.
>You've implied it by saying that I should have given them the money.
I didn't say that. You said you want them to have the money. I said give it to them then.
>How am I suppose to give it to them if they don't ask for it and I might not even have any idea that they exist?
>>Completely irrelevant to anything.
>It's very relevant to the real world. That's how addictions work.
wat
>>Bad. Kant isn't consequentialist? You're getting way off track here.
>So the consequences don't matter. But knowing WHY an action was taken doesn't matter either?
You're getting caught up in word salad here. Why an action was taken matters for determining it's intention but that doesn't mean any good intention of an action leads to a good action. That's where logic comes in.
>What matters, then? 'Intent' as separate from 'reason'? 'Intent' as an abstract that can only be ascertained by a being with perfect knowledge?
No you're trying to insert that again and again for absolutely no reason. It's not part of the system get over it.
>>Bad. You're talking absolute nonsense.
>I'm not talking absolute nonsense, you are. The only way for your morality to work if it's disconnected from the real world and working in terms of absolutes that can only be found out by a being that has perfect knowledge.
No. It works by evaluating whether rational creatures can reasonably want your action to become a universal maxim. That's the question.

>>16526272
9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

>>16520467
Every successful nation in existence has been religious and all current godless nations are slowly decaying from the inside.

>>16526248
>You want to live in a world where lying isn't practiced because it destroys truth and meaningful conversation.
"Truth" and "meaningful conversation" are not the be-all end-all of morality. I'd rather live in a world where everyone lies but no one murders, for instance. You'll probably say that such a world is not possible, but then I'll ask: how do you know that?
>No YOUR intentions.
If I'm the one judging my own intentions, I can do whatever I want based on my preferences. Which do not necessarily match yours.
>Yes.
Okay, glad you've admitted that.
>No I don't. The question if an action is moral or not is based on it's intention alone.
But I'm the only one who can judge my own intentions. But if I'm the one judging them, then I decide how I want to judge them. See, "logically consistent" does not imply "universal".
Universal means the existence of just one logically consistent ethics system, which is what you're claiming. I'm claiming otherwise. And an ethics system being subjective also means that I can choose who it applies to and who it doesn't on my own.
>Kant's ethical system. You claim it is built on God which is simply untrue.
Without being objective, it cannot be universal. And without God, it cannot be objective.
>Dignity for Kant steems from our capability for rational self determination. Humanity is just the practical only species that fulfills that criteria and his audience is human.
Then humans with brain damage cease to be humans. You can't try to argue that they still have "capability for rational self determination" at that point.

>>16526286
Wrong. Atheistic countries like Iceland Japan and Czechia are thriving while all religious countries are shitholes and the level of shittyness is directly proportional to religiosity.

>>16526276
Yeah. So this is the second part the Orthodox tradition refers to where Adam and Eve fail to repent.

God, according to holy tradition, offered Adam and Eve two chances:

(1) To follow God's word

(2) To repent and confess

They call this the "first confession". This was, again, God giving Adam and Eve the chance to repent and confess. If they did this, they would have gotten a second chance. But they ended up not doing so. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. If they had realized their eating of the fruit was due to their own free will and they properly repented and confessed, they would have been forgiven.

The whole Garden of Eden mirrors the purpose of many of the sacraments.

Eucharist- Communion of God in the Garden (being with God)

Marriage- Adam and Eve as partners

Holy Confession- God asking Adam and Eve what they did and how they came to realize they were naked. A chance for them to tell God their errs and repent properly.

The other Sacraments represent other parts, mainly the covenant God gave with Abraham

Holy Baptism- Circumcision command God gave Abraham and God accounting Abraham's faith as righteousness. This is the 'sacrament of faith'

Holy Chrismation- The covenant promise given to the people of Isreal

Holy Unction- I actually don't know

Holy Ordination- Priesthood as instantiated by Moses

>>16520417
objective morality doesn't exist in Nietzche you fucking faggot

>>16526295
Not the same anon, but this is like a son inheriting all the wealth from his mother and father, while the other siblings did not inherit the same amount. The son which inherited everything goes to change his legal name, observes his siblings and says "look! everyone with (this) surname is an idiot!"

>>16526293
>"Truth" and "meaningful conversation" [...] how do you know that?
You can be a consequentialist if you want. I think it's irrational but it will go beyond the scope of this thread to argue that so I'll leave it. Still Kant is not one.
>If I'm [...] Which do not necessarily match yours.
Yes. The system takes the rational sovereign individual as the moral determinator.
>Okay, glad you've admitted that.
Do you even know what Kant wants?
>But I'm the only one [...] not imply "universal".
Can rationally be wanted to become a universal maxim. You're missing a lot of the basics here but in short it isn't about creating an always right juridical body who can determine what is right and wrong. It's about how logic is a complete and the best measure for morality
>Universal means the existence of just one logically consistent ethics system, [...] own.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean you can disagree with the findings of others in Kant's system then yes. But the guiding principle of whether an action can become a universal macim without contradiction pretty much sets things in stone.
>Without being objective, it cannot be universal.
Sure it can. Logic is universal.
>And without God, it cannot be objective.
No with God it isn't objective but based on the subject of God.
>Then humans with brain damage cease to be humans.
No.
>You can't try to argue that they still have "capability for rational self determination" at that point.
This is just dumb. Do you want to discuss what role humanity has in Kant's ethical system or do you want to play a completely irrelevant semantic game? Humans are rational creatures. Humans have two legs. Yes amputees exist. If you want to establish a definition of humanity that includes every individual knock yourself out. My definition suffices to explain Kant's view on humanity.

Going to bed feel free to answer I'll try to reply tomorrow if the thread is still up.

>>16526274
>It's not your need for money it's your right to property.
So the right to property outweighs the right to live?
>Yes. It's a core aspect of Kant's system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_a_Supposed_Right_to_Tell_Lies_from_Benevolent_Motives
Well, I disagree. In my subjective morality, lies are not necessarily bad by themselves. They can be neutral or even good.
>You said you want them to have the money.
No. I've said that I'm fine with getting robbed in that specific instance.
>wat
Read the entire conversation again and you'll understand it.
>Why an action was taken matters for determining it's intention but that doesn't mean any good intention of an action leads to a good action. That's where logic comes in.
You've just said >>16526166 that the only thing good are good intentions. But now you're saying that's not the case and that good intentions can lead to bad actions?
If an action happens, which of the following determine if it was a good action and if it should be followed:
a) It's outcome
b) Your knowledge for why it was taken
c) The true intent behind it (unknowable to anyone but the person responsible)
>No you're trying to insert that again and again for absolutely no reason. It's not part of the system get over it.
Well then it's a bad, broken system from my point of view.
>No. It works by evaluating whether rational creatures can reasonably want your action to become a universal maxim. That's the question.
Anyone can reasonably want almost anything. Doesn't mean myself or others should follow.

>>16526301
Has nothing to do with the basic and explicit fact that the jew god is not all knowing in the bible.

>>16526306
No. Judaism didn't create Europe's wealth. Europeans did. Christjews leeched it. If that were the case christojewish countries in Africa or South America would thrive or ancient Israel would have dominated pagan Rome.
And in any way it suffices to disprove the diotic claim that
>Every successful nation in existence has been religious and all current godless nations are slowly decaying from the inside.

>>16526324
>So the right to property outweighs the right to live?
There is no right to live against other humans. A right not to get killed perhaps.
>Well, I disagree. In my subjective morality, lies are not necessarily bad by themselves. They can be neutral or even good.
k
>No. I've said that I'm fine with getting robbed in that specific instance.
This is just getting silly.
>Read the entire conversation again and you'll understand it.
lol
>You've just said >>16526166 (You) # that the only thing good are good intentions. But now you're saying that's not the case and that good intentions can lead to bad actions?
Yes good intentions can lead to bad consequences hence the only absolutely good thing are good intentions. Sorry I let that word out.
>If an action happens, which of the following determine if it was a good action and if it should be followed:
>a) It's outcome
>b) Your knowledge for why it was taken
>c) The true intent behind it (unknowable to anyone but the person responsible)
d) Can a rational person reasonably want this action to become a universal maxim.
>Well then it's a bad, broken system from my point of view.
I don't think you have engaged with it sufficiently or rationally enough to make that call.
>Anyone can reasonably want almost anything.
not for it to become a universal maxim. And your objection here only shows how stupid consequentialism is.
>Doesn't mean myself or others should follow.
You shouldn't follow. You should logically evaluate your decisions based on the categorical imperative.

>>16526336
>If that were the case christojewish countries in Africa or South America would thrive or ancient Israel would have dominated pagan Rome.

The reason they didnt thrive is because they have lower IQs on average, or their population is too small.

Germanic tribes, Slavic tribes, Celtic tribes existed for millennia. They had druid and pagan cultures. They, despite this, never thrived. Although they probably still had the same IQ.

It was with the HRE and Byzantine empire did they start to have any civilizations at all. It was with scholasticism when they opened universities and heralded intellectualism. We got the renaissance when Christendom was the rule. And many Nobel prize winners were Jewish or Christian. Big Bang, Mendelian genetics, by Catholic priests.

It was with Aquinas did intellectualism come again and did European peoples thrive. It was both genes and culture. Hence why the Japanese had similar misfortunes until the Americans and Dutch arrived.

>>16526323
>Can rationally be wanted to become a universal maxim. You're missing a lot of the basics here but in short it isn't about creating an always right juridical body who can determine what is right and wrong. It's about how logic is a complete and the best measure for morality
"Universal" implies that everyone should follow it and that's it's reasonable to want everyone to follow it. But what if they don't want to? What then? Are you right to force it onto them because "it can rationally be wanted to become a universal maxim"? What if they have a different subjective morality with their own different rules that contradict your own?
>Sure it can. Logic is universal.
Logic is objective though. But you cannot:
>say God is not necessary
>admit subjective morality
>say that there are concepts that "can rationally be wanted to become a universal maxims"
>just assume all of those concepts can either be reconciled or conflicts between them will not matter because...
>logic can be used to reconcile them
Logic is objective. Its laws always hold (as far as we know). But the SOURCE of morality in a morality system is always PREFERENCE. It's possible for two people to both think extremely logically yet still want to force each other into obeying different things because they VALUE different things.

>If you want to establish a definition of humanity that includes every individual knock yourself out.
But if you admit that you cannot do that, then you admit that your morality will always disenfranchise someone. Which connects to the above. Then if that someone decides to fight you (physically, if necessary) and they win and try to impose their morality onto you, then what should you do?
a) be honest and die refusing to obey their morality
b) lie about obeying their morality but not obey it in secret
???

>>16526327
>Has nothing to do with the basic and explicit fact that the jew god is not all knowing in the bible.


You just gave me a passage from scripture which was said to support your claim, and I gave a view as to why it didn't imply the God of the Bible wasn't all knowing.

You didn't adress my argument. And you still are confident. What other scripture inspires this confidence? What is your proof?

A lot of special pleading.
You'd have to say that objective morality exists, and just by chance evolution happened to produce us as a species with brains that are behaviourally predisposed towards behaviours that happen to match that objective moral system.... even though evolution means that our moral intuitions and behaviours are the product of historical accident, since if a billion years ago a slightly different lightening strike happened then we might have ended up with the moral intuitions of lions who think that infanticide and mating with the man who just murdered your babies is morally right and acceptable.

this is obviously tenuous nonsense.
You can't believe in evolution, probabilistic survival of the fittest and random mutation, and accept the fact that our thought processes, behaviours and moral intuitions are the product of evolution , and seriously think that we just by pure chance stumbled upon objective morality unlike every other species that through evolution ended up with different moral intuitions and behaviour.

>>16520386
4chan and reddit

>>16526359
>There is no right to live against other humans.
Well, this is something I fundamentally disagree with. The right to live is much more fundamental than the right to own stuff, which is what you're arguing for. Not only humans have it, animals do as well. Animals have no concept of property but they have the concepts of survival and caring about their own offspring.
>This is just getting silly.
Why is it silly? What's so silly about someone being fine with being stolen from? Asking seriously.
>d) Can a rational person reasonably want this action to become a universal maxim.
See >>16526372

>>16526359
>>16526466
>not for it to become a universal maxim. And your objection here only shows how stupid consequentialism is.
But who decides what can be reasonably wanted to become a universal action in a subjective morality system? Me. I can ascribe whatever value to concepts I want and exclude or include anyone that I want as long as I don't include and exclude someone at the same time or I say that something is valuable and valueless at the same time. Those are the only limits logic imposes on me. But this is not limited to pure ethics concepts. It also concerns the ideas of context, knowledge, etc.
>You should logically evaluate your decisions based on the categorical imperative.
I can easily come up with categorical imperative pairs that would lead to good outcomes if people followed them separately, but would lead to bad outcomes if different people followed different ones at the same time. Here:
Is it a good idea for someone who comes up with an idea to "own" it for a period of time, giving them monopoly to sell goods that use it?
Yes as categorical imperative => when I come up with an idea I am sure to make money with it, but I also have to pay money to others who came up with different ideas before.
No as categorical imperative => when I come up with an idea I will make no money from it, but this means that I also don't have to pay money to use anyone else's ideas.
Both of those could function in a society really well. But let's see what happens if we combine them. Yes people are upset about their ideas being "stolen" and No people are upset that others force them to pay to use their own ideas.

>>16520386
it’s a paradox/oxymoron

>>16525937
>Why is being hurt forever necessarily bad?
Because you got a subjective preference to avoid pain...

How is this complicated?

>>16526642
>Because you got a subjective preference to avoid pain...

Not the same guy.

But you are essentially saying.

"If x has a subjective preference to avoid y, y is bad"

In other words

(\forall x) [(x \in U \land Has(phi(y), x)) -> \lnot \box (y)]

ph(y)i := "a subjective preference to avoid (y)"

U is some set, where P is the set of people as a subset.

"\lnot \box y" means "it ought not be the case that y"

This seems to be an axiomatic claim for you.

Can you prove this? How is this to be justified?

I would disagree. You can construct many modal worlds, where this conditional is not true, and the world would be consistent.

You have to actually justify this axiom from an outside view.

I would say that by your own definition, this is not an objective axiom.

A better set up is this

Form a modal model M = <W, R, V>

let W = {w}\cup I

w is our world. For each world in I, y is in I, if y is a state in heaven, and a possible action from an essence of good. In each I, there is only one ideal person, G with the same essence.

R = {<w,y>| y in I}

Therefore, \box phi iff phi is true in I. That is, if it were something which that perfect essence would do.

>>16526642
>>16526718
I also merely gave an alternative answer. I do not believe one is more justifiable. But one is more objective.

You have to justify your own system of ethics, which you just imposed onto God.

>>16520386
Look up Randian Objectivism
it's the closer you will get of an godless objective morality

>>16526718
>How is this to be justified?
I don't preferences are a thing to be justified.
Like, I could justify some by others. I have a preference not to eat cake, because I have a preference to not be fat, because I have certain physical health and aesthetic preferences, because,,, because
This sort of explanation is not very interesting

Eventually stuff just gonna bottom out in a preference that just IS
without resting on others

>>16526736
I mean, she put the word 'Objective' in the title
lol

>>16520386
You ever read about the weird laws Sodom used to have, aside from the gay shit?

>>16526773
So then an objection that "being hurt is bad" is not justified. At least, it is not as justifiable as assigning truth to "I shit my pants".

Whether or not I shit my pants lies outside my own preferences.

So then the objection against a being enacting something is unjustified. I would suggest, moreover, that instead of using subjective value judgements here, that you have one uncaused being, which derives all truth.

But by your own standards that, I realized what you said is inconsistent.

(\forall x) [(x \in U \land Has(phi(y), x)) -> \lnot \box (y)]

If we have x be the devil. He has a subjective preference to have people avoid being one with God.

When one is separated from God, they experience eternal pain.

Therefore, it is ideal that every person experiences eternal pain.

The idea of "bad" which you assign is then ill-defined and inconsistent, compared to an idea of having all good derived from one ideal being and one state.

Any idea of a subjective morality is unsatisfactory, as I think most people agree.
And God calls a person to have genuine love in his essence. So framing the question as loving an objective being which is objectively good, is more amiable to thie concept.

The simple explanation is before creation there was one being, God. We know all created things come from God, then, and all beings proceed from God. Therefore, ontology, metaphysics, and physics, all truth values precede from God. The justification for any fact being true is that God caused it to be so. Therefore, the justification for any moral statement to be true is God caused it to be so.

>>16526895
no. please go ahead and tell us about the weird laws of a fictional city, including how do you know ny of this.

>>16520467
>atheist nations are safer than religious ones
If it was true, they wouldn't lose to religious migrants

>>16526915
It's in the Talmud. They used to execute people for giving to charity.

>>16526723
>You have to justify your own system of ethics, which you just imposed onto God.
No, no, no. You have to justify YOUR system of ethics, which you've imposed onto ME if you want me to follow it. In the first place, it's not certain if I've even imposed anything onto God, because the claim that God exists is a huge claim in its own right. And if he doesn't, then I didn't impose anything on God. Second, an "objective" morality system originating from God ceases to be objective if its own originator fails to follow it. Let's see why. Your objective morality has the concept of humanity, right? All humans should follow it, right? So you have to include God in your concept of humanity as well. Because if you don't, then why should a being so different from humans and whose experiences are so different from humans serve as the final moral jury for humans? It does not follow logically. But if you do, it's necessary for God to follow the same morality that he imposes onto humans, doesn't it? So every action that God takes needs to make SENSE if a human with equivalent power and knowledge took it. Yet the actions that gods take in mythologies of most belief systems (including Christianity) are definitely not that upon closer examination. I don't need to have unlimited knowledge or power to tell you that. I can simply point out the contradiction. You can try to reconcile the contradiction by saying that God is above logic. But by putting God above logic, you've effectively gave your ethics system a preference away from rationality. So why should a human with a preference towards rationality follow it, even assuming that it's true and they'll get damned if they don't? The concept of "dying for your beliefs" can be extended to the concept of "suffering eternal torment for your beliefs" pretty easily.

>>16526723
>>16527019
You can get rid of those mythologies and give God different attributes. But it's not as easy, you know. Let's see: God is loving, omniscient and omnipotent. Then why do beings supposedly exist that are unable to be saved? (Satan, demons, souls of the damned)? All of those beings were created by God. Or maybe they weren't, which means that God is not the creator of the entire universe, which means that he's not omnipotent. But if they were, then why would he create beings that he'd know would be eternally damned...? Did he: a) not know they'd be eternally damned, in which case he's not omniscient (which means he's not omnipotent either, because to be able to do anything, you need to know everything at first, you cannot do something without knowing what it is); b) knew that they'd be eternally damned and still went ahead, in which case he's cruel and not loving? So the only way to make it all work without accepting logical contradictions as necessary is to severely redefine the concept of sin to the point of acknowledging that redemption is ALWAYS possible, including for Satan or demons. OR Satan or demons don't exist in the first place, and redemption is always possible for humans souls. But that effectively means that one should be allowed to sin however much they want if they can always redeem themselves in the end, doesn't it?

In reality, the concepts of suicidal bravery and irreconcilable preferences together make ANY objective morality system fall apart.

>>16527019
>All humans should follow it, right? So you have to include God in your concept of humanity as well.

God is a being separate for humans. What is good for him is apart from humans. Humans eat to live. God doesn't need to eat to live. In an ideal state of things, God the Father is not identical to the Son of God or men, Because the son of God has to eat on earth, and so do men.

> Because if you don't, then why should a being so different from humans and whose experiences are so different from humans serve as the final moral jury for humans?

Because he is the source of truth. As I stated. Why should humans believe what an all knowing entity believes? Even though we know humans cannot be all knowing. We believe because he is the source of knowledge and truth since everything true has its original cause to his being, but we have free will. So his being and maybe others. We knows all, however. The Father in particular. So he knows everything about all beings. We follow him out of maximality. We follow him being the maxim.

>So every action that God takes needs to make SENSE if a human with equivalent power and knowledge took it.

Yes, this is true and is the result of the modal world system I articulated.

> But by putting God above logic

Yes, TAG. God is the source of truth, he is above all human logic. He is an all knowing oracle. Logic is an oracle made by man made to explain being. Logic isn't an all knowing oracle.

But, this is another issue.

>Yet the actions that gods take in mythologies of most belief systems (including Christianity) are definitely not that upon closer examination.

Give a specific example. Everything the Lord GOD did was just and all good. Without error.

>Then why do beings supposedly exist that are unable to be saved?
>All of those beings were created by God. Or maybe they weren't

They were created. They are unable to be saved because Lucifer rebelled against God. Angels have free will.When Lucifer rebelled....

>>16527021
>>16527019
>>16527037


When Lucifer rebelled, this was like a trial by fire for the Angels. At the moment where the Angels choose to rebel or not, they made their choice and their nature was immutably changed. I heard a story about an exorcist who asked a demon possessed person questions. To my recollection, the questions were like this:

Q: "Do you regret rebelling against god?" A: "Yes" Q: "Would you do it again?" A: "Yes"

There was another question but I forgot.

>But if they were, then why would he create beings that he'd know would be eternally damned...?

>b) knew that they'd be eternally damned and still went ahead, in which case he's cruel and not loving?

God still loves satan and the demons. the action of creation was good. The blame is on the demons themselves due to free will. You are essentially asking that God created himself. The only being who is capable of having free will and never rebelling against God, is himself. The Son, the Holy Spirit which proceeded or begat from the Father.

In general with 'all knowing'. What the hebrews conceive of 'all knowing' is ambiguous. It could be like that God knows all possible branching of time, or all possible scenarios, and there are most of the time, most likely, or inevitable ones.

I dont like compatibalist free will. I like the idea of free choice making being similar to quantum systems.

>>16527037
>God is the source of truth, he is above all human logic. He is an all knowing oracle. Logic is an oracle made by man made to explain being. Logic isn't an all knowing oracle.
Those are your beliefs, but I disagree. Logic is a more fundamental concept that God. And there's nothing you can do or say to convince me otherwise, just like I can do or say nothing to convince you otherwise at this point. At this point, we've come to the very bottom of morality: preference. And I ask of you: if logic is not fundamental, then why should we use it in our morality in the first place at all? Why should we use it, but only until the point where it comes into conflict with the concept of God? Why not just refuse to use it entirely in the first place? If God is above logic, then it should be possible to know God without logic. But a morality system without logic ceases to be a system. "System" implies organization, and organization without logic is impossible.
>Give a specific example. Everything the Lord GOD did was just and all good. Without error.
Jesus says to Judas that he will betray him. Does Judas have free will? If yes, then he could always choose not to betray Jesus. Then why does Jesus say it like it's going to happen with certainty? Does Jesus accept the possibility of being wrong? If yes, then why does he say that? That's lying. If not, then a) he could still be wrong either way, so he's not omniscient or; b) he cannot be wrong, so Judas doesn't have a choice. So him being created by God and having no choice but to betray him is cruel on God's part. You can dance around this issue all the way you want, the only way to defeat it is to refuse to use logic.

>>16527037
>>16527043
>They were created. They are unable to be saved because Lucifer rebelled against God. When Lucifer rebelled, this was like a trial by fire for the Angels. At the moment where the Angels choose to rebel or not, they made their choice and their nature was immutably changed. I heard a story about an exorcist who asked a demon possessed person questions. To my recollection, the questions were like this:

>Q: "Do you regret rebelling against god?" A: "Yes" Q: "Would you do it again?" A: "Yes"

>There was another question but I forgot.

The act of rebelling a single time makes angels unable to change their mind at any point afterwards? So the explanation is the demons are irrational, but it can't be explained to them that they're wrong? Why would God create a being that's irrational, but cannot comprehend that they're wrong? That's cruel in its own right.
>He didn't create them like that, they became like that when they rebelled.
But he knew it would happen and choose to create them like that anyway. Or any of the other possibilities I've brought up in the previous post. This effectively makes them have those qualities in the first place. Or free will exists and God is not all-knowing, so why should be listen to him? How can he be said to always know what's best for us if he's not all-knowing?

>>16527037
>>16527043
>God still loves satan and the demons. the action of creation was good. The blame is on the demons themselves due to free will. You are essentially asking that God created himself. The only being who is capable of having free will and never rebelling against God, is himself. The Son, the Holy Spirit which proceeded or begat from the Father.
Your concept of "love" is fundamentally different from my concept of love. Again, it's a matter of preference. In my concept of love, a parent who knows their hypothetical child would lead a terrible life but chooses to have that child anyway doesn't really love that child. And I extend that concept to God.
>In general with 'all knowing'. What the hebrews conceive of 'all knowing' is ambiguous. It could be like that God knows all possible branching of time, or all possible scenarios, and there are most of the time, most likely, or inevitable ones.
It's ambiguous because that's the only way to prevent people from realizing that it doesn't make sense. The concept of "timelines" doesn't make sense either. Because it's either: a) timelines are entirely separate and unable to interact with one another, which effectively makes the other timelines nonexistent from the perspective of a single one. Absolute inability to be perceived = nonexistence. Or b) it's possible for timelines to interact with one another. At which point they cease to be separate timelines and become one big unified timeline (possibly with a complicated and non-linear chronology).

>>16527093
>Those are your beliefs, but I disagree

Its not a belief it is true.

(1) Suppose An all-knowing all-powerful uncaused creator exists.

It follows that everything which exists, was caused by the creator.

(2) Everything which is true, exists.

If phi is true, then it exists. What exists is God and the created world.

Everything apart from God is dependent on God, its existence. Therefore phi is true iff God made it so, or if it is from God himself.

There are many logic systems, like there can be many computers. Paraconsistent logic, quantum logic, fuzzy logic, classical logic. Some disjoint, some overlapping.

There are an infinite amount of models for any theory, using types you can show this. So I can build an infinite array of machines with different logics. Within each machine, the logic is contingent on the person who created the machine.

Moreover, logic is contingent, its existence, on our minds. Each logic I listed out is based on the mind. If the mind was made by God, it is contingent on God.

>If God is above logic, then it should be possible to know God without logic.

God is above logic, and he is 'ineffible', which some interpret as unknowable. We derive our beliefs from the Holy Spirit calling upon us and touching our hearts. This may be manifested through logic, rhetoric, emotions, or anything which is good.

>Jesus says to Judas that he will betray him. Does Judas have free will?

If I predict that, someone who told me they will have a wedding tommorow, has a wedding, does this invalidate the person's free will?

>Does Jesus accept the possibility of being wrong?

Something may be possible, but entirely improbable. 100% probability does not equate to true. But it is basically true.

It may also be the case that somethings are inevitable, while others are not. How many possible worlds are there, and how many consistent of Judas betraying Jesus? Think of a timeline branching, and we call those 'accessible worlds'.

>>16520561
The rule of law is a judaistic concept, and is abnormal for people.

>>16527093
>>16527127
It may be conceivable that there are countable accessible worlds. So there are infinitely many possible outcomes, but every one of those outcomes includes Judas betraying Jesus.

>The act of rebelling a single time makes angels unable to change their mind at any point afterwards?

They still have free will, but their nature was changed. I think of it like a probability collapsing to be very narrow. The other way to explain it is that 'nature' just means nature. Their nature was changed, and this doesnt say anything direclty of free will.

>Why would God create a being that's irrational, but cannot comprehend that they're wrong?

It was just indicated that they did comprehend, because they had regret. Lucifer was the most knowledgeable angels and knew good from evil. The angels rebelling was due to their desires. Like when you know eating fast food is wrong but it looks so good and you cant help yourself.

>How can he be said to always know what's best for us if he's not all-knowing?

He is all knowing. At minimum, he knows all possible, accessible worlds.

>create them like that anyway.

He didn't create them that way or in anyway. They were perfect and good from the beginning, their own free will led them asray.

>Your concept of "love" is fundamentally different from my concept of love.

Then we're talking past each other and you cant criticize God for not being loving. You need a well defined term. If he isnt loving by your standards, then it doesnt matter. What is more important is he is loving by the defined attributes said in scripture. This is the only possible falsifiability criteria.

Morality doesnt exist otherwise.

>Because it's either: a) timelines are entirely separate and unable to interact with one another, which effectively makes the other timelines nonexistent from the perspective of a single one. Absolute inability to be perceived = nonexistence

You have a crude idea of existence.

A simple example...

>>16527101
>>16527135
A simple example to show how this is possible, is to consider R^8.

We may have, similar to R^2, two parallel universes within.

You could have two parallel lines in R^2. You may, also, have one connecting line from line x to line y.

A simple way to do this is to take the disjoint union of R^4 and R^4, and embedd it into R^8. You have two, seperate universes, which exist in R^8. R is the real numbers.

>be perceived = nonexistence.

Entirely silly. Youre saying all mathematicians dont know what theyre doing.

Existence in math is defined from ZFC, logical axioms.

>Or b) it's possible for timelines to interact with one another. At which point they cease to be separate timelines and become one big unified timeline

Partially correct, but incorrect.

Two parallel lines, connected by one perpendicular line. Another way to view it is you have an imbedding inside the real universe. For example, our universe is 3 D, you simply have a box inside the 3 D space. Another example is the computer. You run a program inside your machine that runs at 30 fps, while the real world is much faster than that. One time is relatively slow to the other.

Also, you don't know general relativity. Even in our own universe, time is relative, and there is no one "time". There is spacetime, which is all interconnected.

>>16527127
>Its not a belief it is true.
>(1) Suppose An all-knowing all-powerful uncaused creator exists.
You say that something is not a belief and then start your next sentence with "suppose"? Really? I shouldn't have to suppose anything if no belief is required.
>God is above logic, and he is 'ineffible', which some interpret as unknowable. We derive our beliefs from the Holy Spirit calling upon us and touching our hearts. This may be manifested through logic, rhetoric, emotions, or anything which is good.
Okay, just answer one thing: if God is above logic, then he should be able to create a being that has free will and is unable to damn themselves at the same time. He isn't bound by logic, so there's no good reason why beings he creates should be bound by it. Why didn't he do that? Infinite power and wisdom carries with it infinite responsibility, and a being who fails to live up to that responsibility is an evil being in my eyes.
>If I predict that, someone who told me they will have a wedding tommorow, has a wedding, does this invalidate the person's free will?
But that person gets hit by a car that night and no wedding takes place. Omniscient God would know that would happen, but you? Not necessarily. See how perfect knowledge is an inherently flawed concept?
>Something may be possible, but entirely improbable. 100% probability does not equate to true. But it is basically true.
But all possibilities ultimately collapse into definite events. Perfect knowledge also entails the knowledge of which events those possibilities collapse into.
>It may also be the case that somethings are inevitable, while others are not. How many possible worlds are there, and how many consistent of Judas betraying Jesus? Think of a timeline branching, and we call those 'accessible worlds'.
If there is even a single thing that God does not know for certain, he ceases to be omniscient.

>>16527135
>So there are infinitely many possible outcomes, but every one of those outcomes includes Judas betraying Jesus.
Which means Judas doesn't have free will in any of them.
>They still have free will, but their nature was changed. I think of it like a probability collapsing to be very narrow. The other way to explain it is that 'nature' just means nature. Their nature was changed, and this doesnt say anything direclty of free will.
No, if someone is categorically UNABLE to even change their own mind or realize that they're irrational, they have no free will.
>The angels rebelling was due to their desires.
The desires God gave them when he created them.
>He didn't create them that way or in anyway. They were perfect and good from the beginning, their own free will led them asray.
What do you mean "He didn't create them that way"? If he didn't create them that way, then who did? And if they existed in some way before he "created" them, he's not omnipotent, is he?
>Then we're talking past each other and you cant criticize God for not being loving. You need a well defined term. If he isnt loving by your standards, then it doesnt matter. What is more important is he is loving by the defined attributes said in scripture. This is the only possible falsifiability criteria.
>Morality doesnt exist otherwise.
Yes, your morality doesn't exist in the way you think it does because the scripture is incredibly easy to falsify just by finding contradictions therein.

>>16527140
Mathematics is not how physical reality works. Mathematics is a game. Physics borrows some rules from that game to try to explain the physical universe, but it only does so in an approximate way.
Ultimately, it's impossible to reason about anything without perceiving it first.

>>16527144
>"suppose"? Really?

Get out of here. I was developing a syllogism. You can only refute the truth if you refute logic. You questioned the logic and I showed it to you. You're now being a sophist here.

>if God is above logic, then he should be able to

He is above any logic of the physical world. What that means is a mystery, just as qualia and conciousness is a mystery. What I had in mind was general logics and more general systems, like topos theory and quantum logic.

>Why didn't he do that?

Why he chose to do anything is his nature

>so there's no good reason why beings he creates should be bound by it.

The good is only derived from God. Otherwise it is subjective and inconsistent. God is the only source of good. You're imposing your own concepts of good onto God. And your own concepts are unjustifiable, unless you want to demonstrate how youre a genius.

>But that person gets hit by a car that night and no wedding takes place. Omniscient God would know that would happen, but you? Not necessarily. See how perfect knowledge is an inherently flawed concept?

Yeah, the scenario designed is that this possibility is entirely improbable.

Perfect knowledge is having all the variables which conceived the universe at hand, allowing for a 'perfect' 'weather model' of the system of the universe.

>If there is even a single thing that God does not know for certain, he ceases to be omniscient.

You are imposing your own conceptions of omniscience onto God, just like you did with love and morality.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (Mark 24:36)

In the boundaries of how omniscience may be described, which one must interpret from scripture, there is no err.

You seem to desire to define terms in a way so that things purposefully do not work. If you show scripture or tradition which are antithetical to what I have said, then this shows an error on my part or potential issue with God.

>>16527153
>Which means Judas doesn't have free will in any of them.

That is false, and compatibilists would disagree. You may say 'Judas had not choice in the matter in that given scenario', but this doesn't imply Judas never had free will, nor did he have free will.

>No, if someone is categorically UNABLE to even change their own mind or realize that they're irrational,

I never said that is what happened to the angels. I said their nature was changed.

>The desires God gave them when he created them.

God gave an architecture, like we give design a computer, how the machine or being transformed was their own desires randomly changing or by their own will.

>If he didn't create them that way, then who did? And if they existed in some way before he "created" them, he's not omnipotent, is he?

You are being obtuse here. The way that they came to be (demons) came after creation.

Youre running like a determinist here. If you have a photon appear, and the photon moves over some time, can you say the nature of the photon was the same since it came into being?

The answer is no.

>incredibly easy to falsify just by finding contradictions therein.
Then do it

>Ultimately, it's impossible to reason about anything without perceiving it first.

Those are your own suppositions, which you cannot show to be true. Like, what are you saying here?

The only reason you think this is because, by science, you were evolved to do so. But this doesnt make it true. You cannot rule out the possibility perception does not equate truth.

>>16527161
>You're now being a sophist here.
How? By pointing out that saying your system doesn't require belief and then starting the first sentence that serves as a basis for that system with "suppose"? That's a perfectly valid and reasonable thing to do.
>He is above any logic of the physical world. What that means is a mystery, just as qualia and conciousness is a mystery. What I had in mind was general logics and more general systems, like topos theory and quantum logic.
Ah, so we don't know what God even is? Then why should I listen to him or your idea of who he is?
>Why he chose to do anything is his nature
So he can do anything that he wants because he's the all-powerful, all-knowing being. Might makes right.
>The good is only derived from God. Otherwise it is subjective and inconsistent. God is the only source of good. You're imposing your own concepts of good onto God. And your own concepts are unjustifiable, unless you want to demonstrate how youre a genius.
IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND INCONSISTENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT PEOPLE. It doesn't make sense any other way.
>Yeah, the scenario designed is that this possibility is entirely improbable.
Yet it happened: https://nypost.com/1999/04/12/bachelor-party-tragedy-groom-is-mowed-down-by-speeding-car-in-bx/
>You are imposing your own conceptions of omniscience onto God, just like you did with love and morality.
>“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (Mark 24:36)
>In the boundaries of how omniscience may be described, which one must interpret from scripture, there is no err.
>You seem to desire to define terms in a way so that things purposefully do not work. If you show scripture or tradition which are antithetical to what I have said, then this shows an error on my part or potential issue with God.
So you admit that you have no real idea what those concepts are either, but still feel like you have the right to impose your interpretations onto me?

>>16527171
>'Judas had not choice in the matter in that given scenario'
So he had no free will. Free will is the ability to make choices between alternatives. If he had no alternative whatsoever, that means he didn't have a choice and didn't have free will.
>I never said that is what happened to the angels. I said their nature was changed.
See, this is real sophistry. "Nature" is just how a thing or person is inclined to behave. I.e. what they want to do. I.e. their mind.
>God gave an architecture, like we give design a computer, how the machine or being transformed was their own desires randomly changing or by their own will.
This metaphor only works with a human architect for whom it's possible to not know that the computer is going to break later on, not God.
>Youre running like a determinist here. If you have a photon appear, and the photon moves over some time, can you say the nature of the photon was the same since it came into being?
>The answer is no.
The answer is yes. That nature is just inconsistent.
>You are being obtuse here. The way that they came to be (demons) came after creation.
>Then do it
I did, but you refuse to listen.
>Those are your own suppositions, which you cannot show to be true. Like, what are you saying here?
Yes, I cannot show them to be true. Just like you cannot show yours to be true. The root of all morality is preference. Yet you seem to think otherwise.

>>16527176
>How? By pointing out that saying your system doesn't require belief and then starting the first sentence that serves as a basis for that system with "suppose"?

Brother, as far as I can tell, that is not what you did.

This was the conversation:

>>God is the source of truth, he is above all human logic. He is an all knowing oracle. Logic is an oracle made by man made to explain being. Logic isn't an all knowing oracle.
Those are your beliefs, but I disagree. Logic is a more fundamental concept that God.

Then I showed how this is the case, supposing God exists. When you said "those are your beliefs", you seemed to indicate that God could exist and yet logic be above him.

And I tried to demonstrate why that is not feasible using as few assumptions as possible. That is how a syllogism works.

>Ah, so we don't know what God even is? Then why should I listen to him or your idea of who he is?

We don't fully know what he is, because some of it is inconceivable, like a blind man trying to understand the qualia of red. We know what is necessary since we had the oracle, God in flesh himself, and that God in flesh said that "This is my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail over it", making the Eastern Orthodox church the oracle of the son.

>So he can do anything that he wants because he's the all-powerful, all-knowing being. Might makes right.

I gave you a proof up there above how God is immutably connected with the essence of good if he exists. >>16527127

>IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND INCONSISTENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT PEOPLE. It doesn't make sense any other way.

It actually makes no sense. See this proof>>16526912

Leads to inconsistency, and contradiction leads to the principle of explosion where everything is true.

You have no justification for subjective morality. If you are going to argue for subjective morality, you will have to argue for subjective logic and truth: "truth is subjective".

>>16527176
>>16527200
>Yet it happened: https://nypost.com/1999/04/12/bachelor-party-tragedy-groom-is-mowed-down-by-speeding-car-in-bx/

Not what I meant. What I meant was I wanted to imagine a scenario where something was told to you it was going to be the case, and it is most probable that it will be the case. I understand this could happen, and it may be probable, the wedding scenario, but I may have not articulated well. Im basically saying there exists scenarios where someone says something is going to happen, and it WILL happen.

>So you admit that you have no real idea what those concepts are either, but still feel like you have the right to impose your interpretations onto me?

I live in the free world, I have the right to do anything I want.

But, what I am suggesting is that youre wrong. I am showing you how it isnt necessarily inconsistent like you say it is. You are so certain, and I am saying "look, that isnt necessarily the case"

>So he had no free will. Free will is the ability to make choices between alternatives.

Youre being obtuse, and many philosophers are compatibalists. Where you cannot 'will what you will', but you have a free will. That is how they put it, not me. Search it up, you seem ignorant on this.

You can redefine free will in anyway which makes you comfortable hating God. But most people and philsophers wouldnt be as sure as you are.

>The answer is yes. That nature is just inconsistent.

In Quantum mechanics you have the uncertainty principle. There is fundamental uncertainty on whether or not a particle will be at one location or not. That is to say, it is not determined in advanced. It is a probability wave. And there are no hidden variables- CONTROVERSIAL. No hidden variable theory is the standard model.

You dont know Quantum Mechanics.

The nature of the photon changed during a wave collapse.

>The root of all morality is preference.

Morality as preference is ill defined and leads to consistency as stated above.

>>16527200
>you seemed to indicate that God could exist and yet logic be above him.
Because it is possible.
>And I tried to demonstrate why that is not feasible using as few assumptions as possible.
As few as possible is still more than zero in your case. Which means your system requires belief.
>We don't fully know what he is, because some of it is inconceivable, like a blind man trying to understand the qualia of red. We know what is necessary since we had the oracle, God in flesh himself, and that God in flesh said that "This is my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail over it", making the Eastern Orthodox church the oracle of the son.
Have you lived during those times? Did God talk to you? If so, how can you be certain that anything of that is true? I say that it's unlikely once you're willing to use logic to examine it, because it doesn't make sense.
>I gave you a proof up there above how God is immutably connected with the essence of good if he exists
Using assumptions, which I can just refuse to make.

>>16526912
>So then an objection that "being hurt is bad" is not justified.
Justified in the eyes of who? The person hurting, or the person being hurt?
>So then the objection against a being enacting something is unjustified.
Not necessarily. What is justified for one person will be unjustified for another.
>If we have x be the devil. He has a subjective preference to have people avoid being one with God.
>When one is separated from God, they experience eternal pain.
>Therefore, it is ideal that every person experiences eternal pain.
>The idea of "bad" which you assign is then ill-defined and inconsistent, compared to an idea of having all good derived from one ideal being and one state.
Why? I can make a subjective morality system where people getting hurt is always good and people not being hurt is always bad. Doesn't mean everyone else will follow it. But it can be logically consistent.

>>16527209
>Im basically saying there exists scenarios where someone says something is going to happen, and it WILL happen.
Come up with one where that is inevitable, then. And not one person saying what they will do and then doing that thing. Person A saying that person B will do something and person B being unable to do anything else because of it.
>But, what I am suggesting is that youre wrong. I am showing you how it isnt necessarily inconsistent like you say it is. You are so certain, and I am saying "look, that isnt necessarily the case"
Yes, because it my mind logic is a more fundamental concept than God. Therefore, logic trumps God when the two cannot be reconciled. That's not inevitable in general, but I'd argue that it's inevitable with Christianity and most other religions. But you think otherwise, because in your mind, logic is a less fundamental concept that God.
>Youre being obtuse, and many philosophers are compatibalists. Where you cannot 'will what you will', but you have a free will. That is how they put it, not me. Search it up, you seem ignorant on this.
Well, then I'm not a compatibilist and I see no good reason why I should be.
>In Quantum mechanics you have the uncertainty principle. There is fundamental uncertainty on whether or not a particle will be at one location or not. That is to say, it is not determined in advanced. It is a probability wave. And there are no hidden variables- CONTROVERSIAL. No hidden variable theory is the standard model.
>You dont know Quantum Mechanics.
>The nature of the photon changed during a wave collapse.
It didn't change, its position just landed on one of the possible outcomes. And that outcome being random is a fundamental. It has a nature (described by the unknowable wave function) but that nature is inconsistent. It's impossible to make predictions from it.
>Morality as preference is ill defined and leads to consistency as stated above.
It doesn't.

>>16527216
>Which means your system requires belief.
Yeah, well, do you mind telling me which of the premises are false, other than God existing? You would have to do that to show logic is above God. Or show the logic doesnt work.

>I say that it's unlikely once you're willing to use logic to examine it, because it doesn't make sense.

That is false. There are no atheist proofs against God. If God probably exists, then the Gospels are probably fully correct- as they are already very accurate and well made. Acts is a very good book- removing the supernatural stuff.

>Justified in the eyes of who?

In the eyes of the 'oracle' logic and epistemology.
>Not necessarily.

The justification is not objective, logical, nor scientific.

>But it can be logically consistent.

If this is the only truth, it can be consistent. But if you say everyone has the same validity to make a moral judgement, it is inconsistent, logically. As I literally demonstrated. Using modal logic, it is inconsistent and incoherent to have this as a universal principle "what is moral depends on the person".

>Come up with one where that is inevitable, then.

Jimmy is determined to kiss his wife on the cheek, while standing a foot from her, in the next 3 seconds.They are in bed, it is a sunny day, and they are in their room alone. It is one bed, a shelf, and a tv. No other objects around.

It is 100% probable Jimmy will kiss his wife on the cheek.

>But you think otherwise, because in your mind, logic is a less fundamental concept that God.

If God exists, then he is more fundamental. It isnt "in my mind", I tried to show it and you havent demonstrated why my proof was wrong aside from saying silly things like pointing out how it is a syllogism.

Supposing God exists, God is more fundamental. You dont seem to get it SUPPOSING GOD EXISTS. If God doesnt exist, you could say logic is the most fundamental, but you cant say its more than God. Because if God doesnt exist, it is vacous.

>>16527226
>Well, then I'm not a compatibilist and I see no good reason why I should be.

Because you don't seem to understand philosophy, logic, or science. Being ill informed is a sign for improvement and a sign to question your beliefs. In general I was citing a source, compatibilism is logically consistent.

It didn't change, its position just landed on one of the possible outcomes.

>It didn't change, its position just landed on one of the possible outcomes.

It did change, it changed its spacial position. Derivatives are literally defined around change. This shouldnt be hard to understand as an atheist. If everything is made of atoms, then any change done to use is due to the change in placement and momentum of particles. By the way, all are random to heisenberg's principle.

>It doesn't.

Prove otherwise. There is a logical proof, right above. I havent seen you provide any. Seems your position is just to talk.

>>16527226
>>16527238
>>16527245
I am open to you refuting my attempts at logical proofs, but you have failed to do so thus far,

>>16527238
>Yeah, well, do you mind telling me which of the premises are false, other than God existing? You would have to do that to show logic is above God. Or show the logic doesnt work.
The universe is one big stage play directed by God. He's omniscient, he always knows what will happen. He's omnipotent, because he chose how the play will go in the first place before it even started. But concepts such as love, forgiveness or compassion have no meaning to him. He's little different from a child playing with his toys, and does not care what those toys think or feel because he doesn't consider them beings worthy of those concepts in his own moral framework. He has little reason to do so. Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being care about beings as limited as humans? Having no compassion for them, he has little reason not to lie to them or treat them in any other way he pleases. See? Perfectly logically consistent and it includes the idea of a God. A God who still has to obey logic.
>That is false. There are no atheist proofs against God. If God probably exists, then the Gospels are probably fully correct- as they are already very accurate and well made. Acts is a very good book- removing the supernatural stuff.
And you are just willing to discard that Judas example?
>In the eyes of the 'oracle' logic and epistemology.
Logic is not enough of a basis for morality. IS and OUGHT.
>The justification is not objective, logical, nor scientific.
It isn't objective, but it can be logical or scientific, meaning there is logical or scientific reasoning between the preference and the rule.

>>16520386
Buddhism is probably the closest, where morality is just an objective feature of reality.

>>16527238
>>16527245
>>16527280
>If this is the only truth, it can be consistent.
It is the only truth for the person who believes in it, because they have no reason to believe anything else. It doesn't mean that others automatically MUST agree. You say that morality must be objective to be a morality, I say that morality cannot be objective and must be subjective.
>Jimmy is determined to kiss his wife on the cheek, while standing a foot from her, in the next 3 seconds.They are in bed, it is a sunny day, and they are in their room alone. It is one bed, a shelf, and a tv. No other objects around.
If his wife cannot avoid being kissed it means that he effectively took away her free will at that point. Not necessarily bad, but she didn't choose to be kissed or not kissed and if she liked it afterwards doesn't matter as far as free will goes. If he announces it early enough that she can choose to avoid getting kissed, she had free will and chose to act on it by refusing or accepting his kiss.
>It did change, it changed its spacial position. Derivatives are literally defined around change. This shouldnt be hard to understand as an atheist. If everything is made of atoms, then any change done to use is due to the change in placement and momentum of particles. By the way, all are random to heisenberg's principle.
Not nature, status. But an omniscient being knows the status of anything at any time.
>Prove otherwise. There is a logical proof, right above. I havent seen you provide any. Seems your position is just to talk.\
The "inconsistency" is your mind is because you are dead set on a finding a moral system that applies to everyone in any case, and don't consider any system that doesn't to be a morality. I have proved here >>16526162 that the existence of a God does not imply the existence of objective morality, because regardless of what you say to me, I can just refuse to make the assumptions you do.

>>16520386
It wouldn’t exist

>>16527280
>Logic is not enough of a basis for morality. IS and OUGHT.

I agree with this in the atheist paradigm. But this means that morality cannot be something you are confident in as science or truth. The justification is intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues are for truth, not moral- they are just guidelines for deriving the truth.

It appears that in the atheist paradigm to impose morality is like imposing that everyone eat strawberry ice cream because that is your preference. Indeed, if you think that is absurd, it is absurd to ever be confident about morality. Otherwise, then that is that, and I have no where else to go. You will have to admit to being able to be confident in saying "strawberry ice cream is good and tasty, and this is true" to be confident in your moral claims.

>He's little different from a child playing with his toys

This is a false dichotomy, you just admitted he would be omniscient and omnipotent. Well, you were working from such premises. The 'child' analogy is only demeaning since children dont have knowledge nor power. This is self refuting as an analogy. There is a big difference. When you say something is child like to demean someone, this is either because (1) children are weak (2) children are retarded.

>does not care what those toys think or feel because he doesn't consider them beings worthy of those concepts in his own moral framework.

This is false according to scripture and holy tradition. He ceasingly loves us and ceasingly longs for everyone to be in communion with him, although that may not be possible. He ceasingly loves even Satan and the demons, and wishes they repented and joined him. He wants everyone to be with him.

>Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being care about beings as limited as humans?

Because he cared enough to create them. And create them with free will. This makes it improbable.

All suffering and pain is the metaphysical result of a seperation from God

>>16527280
>>16527312
See >>16526498 for separation claims.

>>16527300
> I say that morality cannot be objective and must be subjective.

I suppose you can say that. But them morality is just like preferring strawberry ice cream or wanting money. So you might want to treat them equally as valid.

I would say, however, it isnt pragmatic. Logical calculus comes down to pragmatism, as you said. It is pragmatic for science. A non objective morality is not pragmatic for living life or voting or politics.

>If his wife cannot avoid being kissed it means that he effectively took away her free will at that point.

Jimmy had free will. I can just replace kissing his wife with kissing his cross. Point is a person having free will but actions are essentially predictable.

>Not nature, status.

that is nature in your own paradigm. You were literally using material objections to nature impeding free will. If you dont want to use materialism, then you admit that nature is ineffible and doesnt necessarily conflict with free will. Nature is now metaphysical and immune to your logical objections.

>I can just refuse to make the assumptions you do.

Which assumptions do you refute from >>16527127 ?

>What should compel someone to obey every word of god X simply because he has qualities a, b, c and d?

All these are addressed in my proof. I showed how omniscience, omnipotence, and being uncaused leads to all propositions being true iff the entity causes it or willed it.

I may add further and use Socrates' proof

(1) To be moral one must know what is moral
(2) God is the only entity which knows everything

Therefore only God has perfect knowledge of what can be moral

Therefore any human objections to God's will is objectionable and less substantive to God's will

I may add (3), which comes from Scripture and tradition.

(3)- God is truthful

Therefore if God says phi is moral, then true

>>16527312
>This is a false dichotomy, you just admitted he would be omniscient and omnipotent.
None of those ideas inherently compel him to feel compassion. Give a child all of the power and knowledge in the world. They would have no incentive to grow up because nothing they did would ever affect themselves in a bad way. And no reason to care about their toys if they can just make more of them at any moment.
>This is false according to scripture and holy tradition.
I told you he has no problems lying to humans.
>Because he cared enough to create them. And create them with free will. This makes it improbable.
1. Improbable doesn't mean impossible.
2. Boredom is enough of a justification to make new toys.
3. Him being omniscient means that free will doesn't exist.

>>16527332
>I would say, however, it isnt pragmatic.
It's extremely pragmatic. Deciding on your preferences and using logic to build a consistent moral system that will give you more of the things and qualities that you prefer if you obey it is a very good way of achieving happiness.
>Jimmy had free will. I can just replace kissing his wife with kissing his cross. Point is a person having free will but actions are essentially predictable.
That wasn't a consideration of whether Jimmy had free will, but if his wife did. Just like Jesus saying to Judas that he will betray him while supposedly being omniscient is a consideration of Judas having free will, not Jesus.
>that is nature in your own paradigm. You were literally using material objections to nature impeding free will. If you dont want to use materialism, then you admit that nature is ineffible and doesnt necessarily conflict with free will. Nature is now metaphysical and immune to your logical objections.
Nature by itself does not conflict with free will, but if there is an omnipotent and omniscient being that can program the natures of everything in the universe, then it does.
>(2) God is the only entity which knows everything
Baseless assumption.

>>16520386
Might makes right

>>16527359
But guile and deception also sometimes make right.

>>16527355
>>16527341

>achieving happiness.
You have supposed happiness is a moral axiom. You haven't solved the problem, now you just showed why you defined morality that way, which may be rejected.

Tell me, when pursuing the truth that women cannot become men, does this make transgenders happy? No. Truth is pragmatic, rejecting emotions for truth is pragmatic. Making morality about happiness is not pragmatic. Pragmatism is a universal so that society may function or that some truth may be arrived.

>Give a child all of the power and knowledge in the world. They would have no incentive to grow up

What you just said, makes them grown up by what you literally just said. A person who is grown has matured in knowledge, height, and power. This is self refuting. You do not seem to understand a child is a child and a grown up is a grown up because of their attributes. A child is not all powerful nor knowledgeable. Extreme false dichotomy.

>I told you he has no problems lying to humans.

We are working on the suppositions of religion and whether or not theyre consistent. What you think doesnt matter. Youre describing another religion now, which I do not care to discuss.

> 1, 2 3,

1. Improbable means it is less likely to be true. The way science works is through probability. The more statistical and experimental evidence, the more probable. This then collapses into truth.

3. You havent shown this, and have yet to use formal logic for your claims. You insist on misunderstanding and your arguments are all over the place.

>That wasn't a consideration of whether Jimmy had free will, but if his wife did.

No, youre now telling me what I thought and what I intended. I am telling you I intended to show how Jimmy could have free will but be entirely predictable.

This is now saying, you put an observer in the room, if Jimmy's mouth is 1 inch from his mouth and you know Jimmy intends to kiss it, then you can say it is 100% probable he will kiss it.

>Baseless assumption..

>>16527355
>Baseless assumption.

I can tell from this conversation that it is 100% probable you have an obtuse nature. The way God is defined here is the God of the Christian religion which is all knowing. You just asked how God is a better source of morality?!

Why are you being like this? Genuinely, do you hate logic and being correct? Do you have dyslexia? What is your problem.

>but if there is an omnipotent and omniscient being that can program the natures of everything in the universe, then it does.

You have an angle larger than 90 degrees.

We just discussed this. god created the angels, and by their own free will, their natures were changed?!

>>16527382
> if Jimmy's mouth is 1 inch from his mouth

if Jimmy's mouth is 1 inch from his cross*

>>16520386
Work to fulfull your utillity function.
Failure to comply will result in madness.
Kind of like we do to AI to optimise its objective function.
Dead men like dead things... They're psychopathic and can't keep to themselves.

>>16527591
It's not moral. But it's in service of [insert abstract man-made construct here]

>>16526162
It is actually, since a god would act as a law of nature in a way. Like how gravity acts on you whether you believe in it or not. If biblically-accurate YHWE for example says "don't kill" and you kill someone, you go to hell no matter what your opinion of him is. This is what makes it objective (as in equally valid for all observers). Even if you view it as "might makes right" it's still objective (like how you can view gravity in that way since it acts on you and can crush you if you don't consider it).

>>16520561
What kind of rule of law though?
Common law is based on a lot of religious jurisprudence.

File: Screenshot 2024-04-16 145212.png (1.61 MB, 2558x1263)

1.61 MB PNG

>>16520807
Yet the most bloothirsty regimes have all been godless.

File: main-qimg-6f42028561dfca1(...).jpg (29 KB, 602x339)

29 KB JPG

Religious Morality isn't Objetive. It's SUBJECT to the nation following it and will change according to the values/culture of that people. Christianity is a good example, having changed significantly due to Roman adoption and later reformations/schisms/councils.
God's themselves are characters, every God has their subjective tenants and biases. A different view on right or wrong. They are not objective forces.
YHWH choosing Israel before he sent out Christ was a subjective bias. His hatred of Amalek was a subjective bias. His hardening of the Pharoahs heart to deny him forgiveness was a subjective bias. Him sending two she bears to slaughter children because some baldie got insulted is a subjective bias. Etc.

>>16529290
Hitler explicitly used Christian rhetoric to extoll the masses even if he didn't believe it himself.

File: nigga butt.png (807 KB, 1398x1042)

807 KB PNG

>>16529620

Not the same anon, but:

Doesnt remove Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini.

Hitler abused the good, just like Stalin and communists abuse empathy. The Catholic church condemned eugenics as evidence by Pope Pius' letters. This was the result of the Lutheran idea of "faith alone" and their own pride.

You see that meme of a map, also. Attached.

I also am unsure of how many Germans were aware of Hitlers plan of the holocaust. Some ideas were that Jews would be moved, or kicked. It is uncertain, to me at least, as to whether or not Germans- if knowing this reality- would have supported Hitler.

Also, Germany became increasingly secular at that point in time

>>16527303
It can. It's called Marxism and Marxist analysis can be said to be objective.

>>16529732
>can be said to be objective.

Objectively inconsistent.

See Okishio's theorem and Morishima's "Marx's Economics: A dual theory of value and growth" "Marx's Economics: A dual theory of value and growth"

>>16529740
What about reading Marx himself?

>>16529744
I can read and tell it is inconsistent.

The sources I sent are literally modeling marx using mathematics and showing his work is inconsistent.

This is absolutely silly what youre suggesting. Suppose I say "Nazism and Nazi analysis can be said to be objective", then you send a book showing how Nazism is inconsistent, then I say "what about reading Hitler himself?". What kind of braindead and retarded argument is that? What is your IQ? How old are you?