>>25412663
we dont have ethics.
we have ideas about them. hope this helps ^_^

>>25412671
We can't have ethics? Can we have morals? Principles? This discussion is above your level.

File: ethics.png (236 KB, 611x1239)

236 KB PNG

>>25412663
deleuze on why spinoza presents an ethics beyond good and evil

>>25412663
>How can you have ethics without an omnipresent omniscient eternal arbiter of morality?
We already have that, it's called reality.

For examples, stealing is objectively bad because it produces nothing and causes harm.
>b-but what if I want to destroy my society?
ok, then you're not part of the moral framework. may as well say that storms exist therefore morals don't.

>>25412680
>dont
Not
>cant
you decide upon them yourself. there is no set rule for all. most people agree on the major ones and then there are differences in opinion when it gets to the fuzzy outlier questions.
why would you need an omniscient eternal arbiter or morality to tell you that killing someone else is bad? are you retarded?

>>25412688
>reality.
Where in reality do I find ethics? Surely you don't think the answer is general consensus.
>>25412688
>For examples, stealing is objectively bad because it produces nothing and causes harm.
Just because you greentext the most obvious response to your stupid retort does not unburden you of needing to justify your claim.
Why is producing nothing bad, why is causing harm bad? Is everything that produces nothing or causes harm bad? Why should we not want things that produce nothing or cause harm?
>ok, then you're not part of the moral framework
THE moral framework? As in, there's only just one? Is it objective? What assures its existence?

>>25412698
So I can decide upon them myself, but if I find no value in human life and don't consider the need to preserve it I am retarded?
So objectively, everywhere, for all time, it's morally wrong to consider killing someone? Who decided that or made that to be the case?

>>25412706
>everything isn't identical, therefore things can't objectively exist
ok

>>25412715
>things can't objectively exist
I'm only asking how you know that, but you being a sissy wouldn't know how to answer

>>25412711
youre just being pedantic for the sake of it. does _your_ life have value or do you value your life? if the answer is yes then everyone elses has value too. if its a no idk youre a misanthrope and dont get an opinion

Just golden rule it out, treat other beings as you would like to be treated. If that’s violently, accept the consequences. If everyone accepted this, society would live in harmony - in my opinion anyway.

I just directly cognize the Forms.

>>25412663
Laws & regulations very rarely have anything to do with what is moral. Justice is served at the interest of the state.

>>25412663
If we can't find proof of X, then how do we know that X is a necessary condition?`

>>25412736
You willfully barge into a thread about ethics and call pedantic the most basic questions to ever have been raised regarding this domain. Not only that, but you're too stupid too see the flaws in your argumentation even after they've been made clear to you.
Because one life has value, it does not follow that all life does. Even within your opinion it doesn't, since you must differentiate between human and non-human life. And if your claim is "misanthropes ought not get opinions", again, I ask why?
You'll answer "it is because their behavior is not conducive to a prosperous society" and when you're asked not only "what constitutes prosperity" but also "why ought we desire to be prosperous" you will call it pedantic as if you're supposed to be granted your childish whims.
I think this is the decisive blow to "intellectual atheists". Not to atheists, retards will always exist, but at least we've done away with the notion that they're not drooling idiots.

>>25412767
Because of the impossibility of the contrary. As we see ITT:
>An omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, personal, Triune etc God is a necessary condition of objective ethics
>objective ethics exist
>therefore God

Feel free to reject any of the premises but that leads you to some strange places. Skeptics and relativists, though, I find, are much more respectable than naturalists. At least insofar as they act as schizophrenics- when they start disregarding Hume's problem of induction, the whole shtick starts to fall apart.

>>25412782
For objective ethics to exist, you need an objective standard. An objective standard is not god.

>>25412680
Yes, we can have ethics, but like most human issues, it comes down to humans to decide regardless, because even if there is an omniscient eternal arbiter of morality, they're not talking to us, so it falls to humans who interpret God or humans who interpret morals directly no matter what you believe. It simply isn't perfect or universally objective, and its up to us to pick a moral framework and then force it on people, or not, using human means, same as it always was. Whether its church fathers, scholars or world leaders preaching about ethics, they're all normal humans with biases and misconceptions, so its never going to be a perfect system. That doesn't mean that it isn't useful for policing bad behaviors, merely that it isn't 100% objective and fair, but nothing about life is ever 100% objective and fair in any context.

>>25412818
God gives the objective standards.
Not that I'm trying to play word games- do you think He doesn't?

>>25412818
>An objective standard is not god.
You're right. It's God.

>>25412831
>>25412832
an objective standard is an objective standard. god is god. they're not the same thing. if god were real, he might give an objective standard, but gods already "exist" in the sense that people already believe in them and their standards. and still, objective standards do not exist. so, god cannot give an objective standard.

>>25412840
Yeah god can't but God can.

>>25412844
God is the same as all gods, and deep down you know it too.

>>25412860
No but he is the same as all Gods.

>>25412881
Uuugh. You're so tedious.

>>25412885
It's not my fault you're arrogance is preventing you from understanding something so basic. Learn the distinction and why it matters if you want to troll.

>>25412663
>How can you have ethics without an omnipresent omniscient eternal arbiter of morality?
Because I feel bad when I see puppies get tortured, I dont need a sky daddy

>>25412663
>How can you have ethics without an omnipresent omniscient eternal arbiter of morality?
By having a present, knowledged, mortal arbiter of morality?

If ethics are indeed objective, then they shouldn't depend on an arbiter to remain true. Hence, humans could attain sufficient knowledge to correctly be a good judge for at least some of the ethics that exist.

Think of it like playing chess against a computer. The computer beats you every time, but if you have a path to checkmate, the computer physically can't stop you, despite being infinitely better than you at chess.

>>25412698
>why would you need an omniscient eternal arbiter or morality to tell you that killing someone else is bad? are you retarded?

Because it isn't exactly obvious that killing someone is bad. In fact, you can immediately improve a country's crime rates, cost of living, tax burden, individual salaries, illegal immigration rates, and government bloat simply by killing all the criminals, the homeless, the low iq, the mentally ill, the illegal, and the corrupt officials.

You need an arbiter of morality to state outright that this final solution isn't allowed, and right now we call that "the law". But what happens when that society becomes lawless, where do you derive your ethics from then? You need something that supersedes the law, something that can tell you with absolute objectivity, law or no law, that murder is wrong. And now you're on the doorsteps of an omnipresent omniscient eternal arbiter of morality.

File: 1734123811595770.jpg (87 KB, 976x850)

87 KB JPG

>>25412663
You're talking about meta-ethics, not ethics proper. Ethics are simply a set of rules you follow for whichever reason.

>metaethics require god
The nature of morality (i.e. how we determine what we ought to do) is simply based on what feels right or wrong. These are in turn based on neurochemical signals. We judge moral acts from a general viewpoint, and we deem "hypocrite" a moral standard that doesn't survive universalization.
What's right is what produces rewarding chemicals, and what's wrong is what produces negative chemicals. This is simply because every act is determined in relation to the objective desired, and that objective desired is sought-after because it produces certain signals within our brains. These signals come from evolution, which explains why morality is both nurture and nature.

>>25412888
>tries bait
>gets btfo'd
>immediatly starts acting retarded to avoid answering
I wish christcucks were more intellectually honests desu. It's just sad to see so many debates turn into pointless shitflinging because of their dishonest intentions.

>>25412840
God does not exist only in the way that people believe in him. Little "g" gods similarly do not exist simply because some believe in them. I'm not the lil g capital g anon btw, I'm op- just clarifying.
>>25412901
Some enjoy seeing puppies tortured. Are they not just as valid in their beliefs as you are? Why or why not?
>>25412911
If it's present and not omniscient etc, then the laws are subject to change, therefore not objective.
Also ethics in my perspective are not dictate by God so much as they are an Extension of His mind. God, in other words, doesn't necessarily dictate something is correct, rather He knows something is correct and reveals that to us.
>>25412924
Good post

>>25412925
>You're talking about meta-ethics, not ethics proper. Ethics are simply a set of rules you follow for whichever reason.
I was talking about ethics, as in "the study of what is morally right and what is not". It should maybe have been "the knowledge of what..." but "study" works all the same, because without God, one has no ground to stand on when determining the morality of an action. But I'm happy to grant my misspeaking all the same, in spite of the fact that your definition is blatantly incorrect.
>The nature of morality (i.e. how we determine what we ought to do) is simply based on what feels right or wrong
Observably incorrect. Clearly, what one can "feel" is right or wrong differs from what others feel. Especially in history, but also today.
>These are in turn based on neurochemical signals
You further bury yourself. Neurochemicals try their best to convince us to, for example, procreate, though I'm sure you'll agree procreation without the consent of both parties is immoral.
>What's right is what produces rewarding chemicals, and what's wrong is what produces negative chemicals.
What produces "rewarding chemicals" by the way you fucking pseud window licker, you should at least learn the vernacular before trying to argue on this subject can be rape, murder, theft etc- so clearly, morality is not dictated by chemicals in our brains.

I won't read the rest of your drivel, but let it be known that the other post you've replied to had not been written by me (OP)

>>25412936
>If it's present and not omniscient etc, then the laws are subject to change, therefore not objective.
The rocks was over there, now it's over here. That means it doesn't objectively exist.

>>25412936
>Some enjoy seeing puppies tortured. Are they not just as valid in their beliefs as you are? Why or why not?
"Valid" how? You either enjoy seeing puppies get tortured or you don't. There's no "valid" or "invalid" in the sense of a scientific hypothesis. To me, if you enjoy seeing puppies get tortured, you disgust me, and I want you locked up for life. That's the essence of morality. That's all it is. Feelings.

>>25412968
That's a category error. The rocks are material, unlike your perception of morality or anything else. My claim is that immaterial things can objectively exist (or otherwise be objectively the case). The rock exists in a different state, how can that be true of moral claims?
>>25412969
My position is that x claim can be objectively true or false. With your post, you admit that the claim "I like seeing puppies tortured" can be just as virtuous as your claim to not like that. We operate within different paradigms and I don't think we can reconcile lest you see the flaws in your reasoning.

>>25412977
Well, my perception of morality is material, like morality itself is; it exists in the interactions between moral agents. It doesn't exist in a book or in someone's head, like a whirlpool doesn't exist within a drop of water, or a landslide doesn't exist within a pebble. That the pebbles will behave differently on different mountains and under different conditions doesn't make their behaviours subjective. Morality is the same; it's objectively true, but different depending on its circumstances. It's also a lot more complicated than whirlpools since it's made out of living things which adapt themselves to their environment and are part of their own environment so they constantly change themselves in response even just to themselves.

Morals are obviously objectively true, and correct morals are also obviously objectively true, just like the given path of a pebble is objectively true. There's nothing subjective about any of it.

It's just impossible to make up permanent moral rules, because again they're made out of the interactions between living things. So any time you aim for a target the target shifts, so you must adjust your aim, so it shifts again, and so on until life becomes unsustainable. But though it constantly changes, it still at any given time exists. Much like the rock, which incidentally also only exists out of the interactions of more fundamental building blocks and constantly changes albeit at a much slower rate than living things.

Really, the only thing the "omnipresent omniscient eternal arbiter of morality" does is point you in a direction. But once it has told you what goal you're supposed to be aiming for, it's no longer necessary. And really, you can figure that part out for yourself; that's the easy part. Although, you maybe wouldn't think it from looking at all the terrible goals people are setting for themselves.

>>25412963
>Clearly, what one can "feel" is right or wrong differs from what others feel
You're presupposing that morality is universal and must be universally the same. Justify it.

>though I'm sure you'll agree procreation without the consent of both parties is immoral
Rape is associated with anti-social behavior so no your point doesn't stand as obvious as it is desu

>morality is not dictated by chemicals in our brains.
Again you're just smuggling moral realism within your proposition. Try again

>>25412977
>My position is that x claim can be objectively true or false. With your post, you admit that the claim "I like seeing puppies tortured" can be just as virtuous as your claim to not like that. We operate within different paradigms and I don't think we can reconcile lest you see the flaws in your reasoning.
What are the flaws in my reasoning?
The claim "I like seeing puppies get tortured" is a report of a subjective state of mind.
My claim "torturing puppies is bad" is also a report of a subjective state of mind, namely feeling bad when I see puppies get tortured and feeling like I want this to stop.
My moral feeling makes me want to call upon the government to stop people from torturing puppies because it makes me feel bad.
That's all morality is. Strong feelings of praise/blame. There's no flaw in my reasoning, Dyercuck.

>>25412969
Ethics can certainly be grounded in feelings/emotions, but is that the only way for ethics to be grounded? Could someone ground their ethics in God? In Reason? If so, then you can't state as a truth claim "That's the essence of morality. That's all it is. Feelings."

>>25412925
Insisting it's bait just cause the truth made you seethe is pathetic.

>>25413025
>Could someone ground their ethics in God
Possibly, but that wasn't the claim. The claim was there's no other way to ground ethics other than in God, and therefore God must exist, not that God is one of many options of grounding ethics.
> In Reason
In my experience moral philosophers tend to reason by appealing to their intuitions, ie. feelings. They come up with all sorts of thought experiments and try to test people's moral feelings to the extremes. For instance they'll say something like "if we accept the moral principle that we shouldn't harm people, then what about if harming one person prevented the harm of 100 people" and they'll go through this reasoning process that's more akin to therapy or self-revelation on an emotional level than actual reasoning. They basically just apply the principle of logical consistency to axioms grounded purely in feeling, and Idek how valuable that even is given that logical consistency has ntohing to do with feelings.

>>25412663
but God is omnipotent too, and God wouldn't let anything truly bad happen so ethics would become superfluous

>>25412663
why do you need an external arbiter of morality? it's a changeable thing. or at least its changed over history. surely if an external being or entity was deciding things, it would be a fixed set of rules?
why instead can it not be humanity themselves are the omniscient, omnipresent eternal arbiter? as far as we know we are the only ones with a sense of morality - that is animals dont seem to exhibit the same moral traits you would see in humans. so for our purpose humans are omniscient, omnipresent and eternal.
collectively, over time, a general idea of morality would take hold, ever changing based on the zeitgeist, regression to the mean style - tending towards a cooperative relatively peaceful system.
at some points in time maybe all killing is bad, maybe at others you could kill the homeless as another anon said, or maybe another time you kill the people 'responsible' for making them homeless?
idk tldr i dont get why you need an external arbiter when people themselves have a sense of right and wrong and over time they coalesce to a general mushy sense of morality

>>25412663
With policemen and prisons. Anybody who speaks about ethics, morality and law is actually talking about coercion.

>>25412663
If everything needs a creator who created God
>nobody, God always existed
Then why can’t the universe always exist? This is known as “special pleading”

>How can you have ethics without an omnipresent omniscient eternal arbiter of morality?
By having ethics. What does an arbiter of morality have to do with your ethical framework? They can get their own.

>>25413010
> my perception (...) is material
You've written a pretty passage but I think you're hindered by your lacking of understanding of terms. Your perception is not material because "perception" is something that occurs in the mind and "material" refers to a physical substance. That is all unless you want to go the route of neurochemistry but I think that even in that case you'll be wrong.
>Morals are obviously objectively true
No, not obviously so. I'd wonder whether you want to get into a discussion regarding self-evident truths but I fear you wouldn't understand those either. Morals can't definitionally be "obviously" true if people disagree.
I don't mean to be rude because I can see you're willing to earnestly engage in this conversation but you just lack basic knowledge.
>>25413015
>You're presupposing that morality is universal and must be universally the same
Rather, I'm claiming it to be the case. This, here, is the conclusion, rather than an argument.
But I don't even have to do that, since you were the one claiming that morality is based on "what one feels to be right or wrong". It is on you to substantiate that claim.
>Rape is associated with anti-social behavior so no your point doesn't stand as obvious
This was a critique to you. My issues with rape have nothing to do with whether the behavior is "anti-social"- my reasoning for disliking it is ultimately tied to Christianity.
It was on you to reason 1. why it is antisocial 2. why we ought not do things that are antisocial
>you're just smuggling moral realism within your proposition
It is the position I'm defending. It has to be presupposed as much as we both presuppose words have meaning when discussing.
>>25413025
>Ethics can certainly be grounded in feelings/emotions,
If they "can be grounded in (fleeting thing)" then they can't in fact be grounded at all.
>>25413020
>What are the flaws in my reasoning?
>My claim "torturing puppies is bad" is also a report of a subjective state of mind
Right there. You are not, in fact, and as admitted by you, declaring anything regarding the morality of an action, but rather your preference as to what one ought to do. As such you're not making any ought-claim but rather giving biographical detail.
>My moral feeling
Is as worthwhile as anyone else's moral feeling dictating to them to torture puppies.
>>25413078
>God wouldn't let anything truly bad happen
source?
>>25413079
>why do you need an external arbiter of morality?
because coming up with your own ethics is arbitrary and useless
>at least its changed over history
not the case at all.
>why instead can it not be humanity themselves are the omniscient, omnipresent eternal arbiter?
because humans, whether individually or collectively, are not omniscient or omnipresent or eternal. I mean what are you, a fucking retard? I guess on second thought I won't read the rest of your post.

>>25412663
i guess remove Y

>>25413079
i feel bad about calling you a retard so I'll respond in detail:
>collectively, over time, a general idea of morality would take hold, ever changing based on the zeitgeist, regression to the mean style - tending towards a cooperative relatively peaceful system.
Here, not only are you engaging in quasi-religious discourse, saying that eventually we'll achieve x moral system, but you're also without any explanation, claim that said system has to entail cooperation and peace. For almost all of history, no one has thought those two to be criteria for what makes a system moral. This however is merely a small defeater to your argument- even if everybody agreed that peace and cooperation are to be desired, it logically wouldn't follow that that makes them oughts.
More bluntly put, maybe in fact the agreement that we all come to in terms of moral (even if we don't all have to agree) is that in fact what is good is to subdue others and enslave them. On what grounds would you reject that notion? To skip the rhetoric, maybe you will say that this would be unwanted because it causes displeasure to a lot of people. But 1. Why is displeasure bad? 2. Even if it is bad, why shouldn't it be prevalent among most people? 3. Why should the suffering of many subside the enjoyment of the few?
>at some points in time maybe all killing is bad
This is an incorrect approach. You can't make claims about "killing" in general- if you were to ask me "is killing wrong?", I would ask what killing you refer to.
Killing for sustenance is good, but, again, only in some cases. Killing humans to feed on them is wrong.
As such, for all time, killing a specific person for a specific goal is wrong and has been wrong and will always have been wrong- you can't make a blanket statement about killing in general. Just because, as it pertains to your example, killing a certain group of people, at a point, SEEMED moral, it doesn't mean it was back then or that it can be seen as such today.
>maybe at others you could kill the homeless as another anon said
there can be nothing wrong with that unless you consider that human life has value and it is irrational to believe that unless you are a theist.
>>25413180
you didn't even understand the argument silly man

>>25412911
>If ethics are indeed objective, then they shouldn't depend on an arbiter to remain true

If ethics are indeed objective, that requires a justification for why the ethics are objective which means you do need an arbiter since only an all knowing and all good arbiter could only declare an objectively true ethic since they have all knowledge at their disposal and are goodness itself.

Humans do not possess these properties. Each human is working with limited knowledge and limited goodness meaning any kind of ethics we would come up with would be subjective at best.

>>25412663
>X is a necessary condition of Y
>Y exists
>therefore X
What did this demented schizo mean by this?

>>25412663
Transcendental arguments are trash

>>25413179
>If they "can be grounded in (fleeting thing)" then they can't in fact be grounded at all.

I never said it made sense, just that you CAN do it, at your own peril of course lol because as you stated, the moment you do it, your moral ground evaporates.

>>25412782
>>An omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, personal, Triune etc God is a necessary condition of objective ethics
This is literally just gibberish, not even getting into the ontology of ethics

>>25412925
>I wish christcucks were more intellectually honests
If Christians were intellectually honest, they wouldn't be Christians.

>>25412782
>An omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, personal, Triune
this is a very odd list of properties. why is each of them necessary? why couldn't God be singular, dual, or quadroon?

>>25413341
explain since

either ethics are objective or subjective. if ethics are objective then you need to account for that in a big way, because to declare objectivity means to declare a universal truth for all time and only one Being has that kind of knowledge, power, and goodness necessary to declare such a thing.

if ethics are subjective, you still need to account for why but the standard is so low at that point that you can make feelings your ethics as some anon said or your own mind making up the rules for your ethics.

>>25413330
Why?
>>25413331
>I never said it made sense
genuinely, why talk about it, then?
>>25413351
Omnipresent that the laws of ethics are the same everywhere in the world, eternal that they are the same at all times, omnipotent that another being or action can't prevent Him from ensuring said laws are the case, personal that His creation has telos and is not an a series of arbitrary events and Triune so that issues like the one of a monad or the One and the Many can be addressed. The latter is clearly a more profound discussion, I'm happy to have it if you want.

Who's going to take time out of his busy schedule ensuring the proofs of every equation from relativity to quantum physics is possible while simultaneously keeping on eye on us to make sure we're praying to his 2,000 year old dead jew carpenter son regularly?

>>25413396
Gee, dunno, maybe an omnipotent being? I understand that "skydaddy" is losing wind but maybe come up with better zingers
As it has been said, atheists are unchangeably big retards

>>25413179
>It is on you to substantiate that claim
I've already substantiated it, you failed to actually criticize it by lacking a proper counter-argument to support your conclusion.

>1. why it is antisocial 2. why we ought not do things that are antisocial
1. Because it destroys social bonds by inflicting traumatizing events upon others
2. Our brain has developed within us empathy and compassion for others. Most people cannot live with the guilt of causing serious social harm by virtue of guilt, empathy, sadness etc. Hence, it is good for people to avoid anti-social behavior on the premise that they aim at being happy.

>It has to be presupposed as much as we both presuppose words have meaning when discussing
No, it's the opposite. When you want to show the incoherency of a position, you have to argue it on its own terms to show the contradiction. You asked a question, I responded, you disagreed with my answer but never adressed it by detailing an actual argument.

>>25413390
>omnipotent that another being or action can't prevent Him from ensuring said laws are the case
i'm having trouble imagining what exactly happens in this counterfactual of non-omnipotence. what's an example of an action an agent could take that would actually change the moral law? it doesn't sound like you're talking about changing a situation such that a different subset of the moral law applies, because that's something that happens routinely, but actually altering the moral law itself.

>>25413414
Abolishing sodomy laws (however, God will use His omnipotence and ultimately correct this)

>>25413287
X exists; therefore X

>>25413413
>I've already substantiated it, you failed to actually criticize it by lacking a proper counter-argument to support your conclusion.
>When you want to show the incoherency of a position, you have to argue it on its own terms to show the contradiction
I've done that manifold and you're yet to address most of my criticism.
>Because it destroys social bonds by inflicting traumatizing events upon others
You're equivocating on "social" here, by referring to both "that which pertains to society" and "that which pertains to relations between individuals". Either way, you are presupposing that
>1. destroying social bonds is something one ought not do
>2. traumatizing necessarily leads to worse outcomes than any non-traumatizing interactions
>3. worse outcomes are not to be desired
I understand I'm beating a dead horse with most of my questions and I'm only acknowledging this is tedious because I myself am getting tired of it, but I'd rather an atheist would tell my how and why something is or can be bad, rather than saying it is bad. I won't grant you any of this.
>Our brain has developed within us empathy and compassion for others
So, again, even within your paradigm, our brains has also developed in a much more fundamental way to make us want to reproduce, and it's up to you to figure out why the desire for compassion ought to supersede that of procreation, even without our partner's consent.
Note that I only bring this up to point flaws at your reasoning that "one ought to follow "our brains' desires". I myself don't believe that what our brains want is what makes something moral. As for the rest, things like "aim at being happy", we've yet to establish why that is an ought. You can claim that you prefer that, but it isn't a moral imperative.
>>25413414
>what's an example of an action an agent could take that would actually change the moral law?
Presupposing supernaturalism, suppose another diety or being would want to take over creation and have its law be mandate as far as our ethics go.
Alternatively, imagine that ethics entail sorts of punishment for immoral actions. Omnipotence is needed to ensure justice is ultimately met in spite of any obstacle.

>>25412936
>it's present and not omniscient etc, then the laws are subject to change, therefore not objective.
So, you don't believe you have any qccess to objective reality whatsoever?
>>25413297
>If ethics are indeed objective, that requires a justification for why the ethics are objective which means you do need an arbiter since only an all knowing and all good arbiter could only declare an objectively true ethic since they have all knowledge at their disposal and are goodness itself.
Objective just means externally verifiable, anon. It means it doesn't change depending on the person or justification.

Are you really going to sit here and tell me I can't know that 1+1=2 without depending on God's word? I need to open up the bible and look for proof?

>Humans do not possess these properties. Each human is working with limited knowledge and limited goodness meaning any kind of ethics we would come up with would be subjective at best.
You didn't understand the chess analogy. Consider that stupid people can be right about things. Stupid people can know stuff that remains the same no matter how smart you get. Likewise, stupid beings(us) can know stuff that's objectively true. We're just stupid so won't grasp ALL the ideas.

>If it's present and not omniscient etc, then the laws are subject to change, therefore not objective.
Uh, anon. No. That's not how it works. 1+1 remains 2 and I don't need to be all knowing to know that one specific fact is true. I just don't know everything. You're just denying that humans posses knowledge at all, which, uh, isn't its fruit what we're cursed with?

>Also ethics in my perspective are not dictate by God so much as they are an Extension of His mind. God, in other words, doesn't necessarily dictate something is correct, rather He knows something is correct and reveals that to us.
So, God doesn't decide it's correct or not? Or does He?

>>25413642
>So, you don't believe you have any qccess to objective reality whatsoever?
I believe that I do based on the fact that I'm created in God's image through the Son and in the Spirit and imbued with Logos. Other than that, no, I don't believe that anyone does have access to objective reality without grounding that in God, per Hume's writings.
>Objective just means externally verifiable
That is incorrect. I could point you to geocentrism being "externally verifiable" some couple thousand years ago, but rather I'd have you consult a dictionary, let alone philosophic writings. Just being pedantic though, I don't think your definition is correct.
>Are you really going to sit here and tell me I can't know that 1+1=2
In fact, yes, given that this sort of abstract thought is not verifiable empirically. You'd have to believe that there is out there in fact a world with regularity which can only have been created by God. If you feel you can argue for a world with regularity created arbitrarily, do so, but explain then why the laws of logic won't arbitrarily shift.

I just figured you were responding to a different guy. It's rare that people agree with me when I start threads like these.

>Likewise, stupid beings(us) can know stuff that's objectively true
This is the sort of thing I'd reject. How would you know that what you consider to be objectively true is indeed so? At a fundamental level, as of right now I'm not even asking about Descartes' demon.

>>25413642
>Are you really going to sit here and tell me I can't know that 1+1=2 without depending on God's word?
You can't know 1+1=2 without God because to even begin to process and understand 1+1=2 requires knowledge to have meaning, order, and structure. If knowledge were meaningless, random, and chaotic, you couldn't reliably say 1+1=2. 1+1 would have a different answer every time in a meaningless universe because there is no reference point (God) to ground knowledge in, a reference point by the way which is all knowing and all powerful, who could construct an ordered nature and be the reason for abstract intangibles such as numbers.

Give me an account for why 1+1=2, ontologically? I have my answer which is these are laws of numbers grounded in the mind of God, who is

>>25413642
>>25413729
>missed a few words
I have my answer which is these are laws of numbers grounded in the mind of God, who is the ultimate reference point of all knowledge and structure.**

>>25412706
> Where in reality do I find ethics? Surely you don't think the answer is general consensus.
Where in reality can you find the intersection of demand and supply?
> THE moral framework? As in, there's only just one? Is it objective? What assures its existence?
THE economy? Is it objective? Do we need god to have an economy?

>>25413729
> You can't know 1+1=2 without God because to even begin to process and understand 1+1=2 requires knowledge to have meaning, order, and structure.
Your fallacy is: Begging the question.

>>25412663
how do you have ethics without that thing? sounds like you invented one thing to support another think you also invented. pretty clever. what will you think of next? a third thing with is one and three at once and irreducible so you never have to face the problem of duality or negation by simply invoking a higher dimensionality to your argument? hah. kids these days.

>>25413729
you cannot argue for the transcendental without presupposition, forcing yourself into the position that:
>all arguments are presuppositional, theory laden and worldview based

the sophists were the first to make this argument and were refuted through contradiction and circularity. when you begin to shift the argument forward or backward into a meta-argument or infra-argument you have lost the argument, through avoidance.

a presuppositional critique is a meta-argument. an argument about the argument. this can be reduced ad infinitum through recursive application. most humans are pragmatists, but some are foundationalists, infinitists or coherentists. religious people tend to oscillate between all four positions depending on who they are arguing with.

in the current age, they can use presuppositional arguments because those are foundationalist which does well against the modern infinitist and coherentist (both relativist) frameworks, but it does poorly against pragmatist worldviews.

>"what's in it for me if i give you 10% of my income forever? sounds like you just want power and are giving me false hope, i'd rather rely on technology than tired ideas and superstitions from 1000 years ago, you failed to hold back the modern world, your worldview cannot account for the current mess we are in, and if we look at it closely a lot of the problems we are facing were caused by heretical perversions and extensions from your very starting positions. in china women and men put tradition and the family ahead of the individual, and they have no issues with modern technology, AI or consumerism. instead of being empty nihilists due to protestant interpretations about personal relationships with god, they hold the pre-christian idea that man cannot be divorced from his environment and adopt a holistic framework of social harmony and peace, which does not invoke any god or religion. in fact christianity is the way it is largely because pagan barbarians refused the secularizing force of the roman empire, and instead needed to be spoon-fed nonsense about sky gods and the underworld, due to their uncivilized and superstitious nature not having matured or developed enough to adjust."

>>25412969
>Feelings.
Based and Humepilled.

>>25412688
>For examples, stealing is objectively bad because it produces nothing and causes harm.
So whatever produces something = good and whatever causes harm = evil?
Where in reality can I find these arbitrary limits? What if I produce shit? What if I harm a mosquito?

>>25413403
What DOES the Abrahamic God need all those baby foreskins for I wonder? And why would he order his followers to suck them with their mouths? curious thing for him to command while keeping an eye on the nuclear fusion taking place at the heart of every star in the universe

>>25413179
>As such you're not making any ought-claim but rather giving biographical detail.
You're just repeating Jay Dyer's braindead talking points with no thought put into whatever you're saying.

Yes morality is a "biographical detail" because it's just a subjective set of values rooted in emotion that everyone has.

Different cultures have different moralities.

>Is as worthwhile as anyone else's moral feeling dictating to them to torture puppies.
There's nothing that's objectively worthwhile. The moral feelings of people who torture puppies are not worthwhile TO ME because my values go against that, but of course TO THAT PERSON it is worthwhile.

You really think you're making a point but you're not.

>>25413677
>Other than that, no, I don't believe that anyone does have access to objective reality without grounding that in God, per Hume's writings.
So, you're not actually reading this text right now? Unless you ask God first?

>I could point you to geocentrism being "externally verifiable" some couple thousand years ago
Geocentrism was not externally verifiable 2000 years ago because it was never a fact.
>dictionary
>expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Hence, externally verifiable. It's not just based on a subject's opinion. You're just confused.
>In fact, yes, given that this sort of abstract thought is not verifiable empirically.
Well, for totallogies like that to bot be true, you'd have to break the law of non-contradiction, which goes into all sorts of absurd places. Anon, if 1+1 isn't 2, then how do you know there's only 2 genders?
>You'd have to believe that there is out there in fact a world with regularity which can only have been created by God.
That doesn't follow. I can't see how regularity could only have been created by God. Maybe it was, but just because consistency exists doesn't mean nothing else coulf have caused it.
>If you feel you can argue for a world with regularity created arbitrarily, do so, but explain then why the laws of logic won't arbitrarily shift.
Why would they? Whims imply a being. A dead inanimate reality would indeed intuitively be a consistent one. Such is the nature of rocks and corpses.
>This is the sort of thing I'd reject. How would you know that what you consider to be objectively true is indeed so? At a fundamental level, as of right now I'm not even asking about Descartes' demon.
Reason, namely. I am a rational agent. As are you. In order for me to even intend anything, I use reason. Thus, I can rest assured that, as long as I do have a justification for anything, I'm handling some form of objective reality(aka external to myself. Hypothetically verifiable stuff), as I'm not acting on myself alone.

External reality exists, and, ironically, I know this because I'm not omniscient. What happens without my knowledge happens without my consent. Unless I'm all knowing, objective reality must exist, because frequently one needs to do stuff they did not request. A noticable absence of knowledge is evidence of something externally existing beyond me.

>>25412663
My goodman, the burden of proof is on you. So prove to me that there is an eternal arbiter.
From where i sit I dont see one, yet I see ethics and morality everywhere. Checkmate

>>25412663
lol just dont do shitty stuff
you people are so fucking pathetic and weak

>>25414132
Anon, repeating Richard Dawkins and Alex O'Connor talking points doesn't make you any better

>>25414025
Yes I am making that argument but I don't see how I lost the argument through avoidance when I acknowledge all arguments are presup, TL, and worldview based and that the cause for the transcendentals will always be an all knowing all powerful all good personal God.

There is no cause for transcendentals in a Godless worldview, you will hear a lot of atheists say "they just are" which isn't an argument at all. At least give me some kind of cause like a AI supercomputer that computes a universal simulation in the 12th dimension or whatever but atheists can even do that.

>>25413364
>either ethics are objective or subjective
False dichotomy. No object without a subject. Next sophistry

File: 000c99f439c48a87cb4a761e7(...).png (61 KB, 298x287)

61 KB PNG

>>25413498
>I've done that manifold and you're yet to address most of my criticism
I don't get the point of trying to do b8 like this. I've given you an answer to your original question, you then replied it was wrong on the premise that your position was correct without explaining it, I then asked you, and now you just retort to "nuh huh ive already said it". I get that it's fun to debate but what's the point of doing b8 if not to actually engage with what people say to a minimum extent ?

>Either way, you are presupposing that
I'm presupposing that trauma diminishes the relations between individuals ? lmfao pretty big claim to have there

>but I'd rather an atheist would tell my how and why something is or can be bad
I've already told you, we determine how we should act based on our brain's reward system. Moral language (i.e. this is good) just takes a universalized stance through a general viewpoint rather than a particular one.

>it's up to you to figure out why the desire for compassion ought to supersede that of procreation
Because inflicting trauma on your partner leaves you with much less satisfaction than respecting consent.

>we've yet to establish why that is an ought
Because being happy is the brain's way "ought". Happiness isn't a goal to achieve, it's how we know we should do something or not. Happiness is simply the satisfaction of one with his present state. Unsatisfaction means that there are thing he should be doing to change that state, hence what is necessary to be satisfied is what one should do by virtue of it being the absence of "oughts".

>>25413729
You're conflating the TAG with another argument. You should've argued that certainty about 1+1=2 can only come through God, not that knowledge requires meaning, order and structure. As it stands, we can perfectly have order and structure within an uncertain universe based on observed patterns, albeit they aren't certain.

>>25414436
ok, tell me then how ethics can operate outside of absolute or relative? There is no third space for ethics to occupy, it either exists or it doesn't.

>>25414444
>As it stands, we can perfectly have order and structure within an uncertain universe based on observed patterns
If your basis for order and structure rely on observed patterns, but these observed patterns operate in an uncertain universe, how then can you trust the observed patterns to be true and consistent? You can't, an uncertain universe makes any observation questionable, putting into doubt "perfect order and structure".

>>25414485
>absolute or relative?
Another one

>>25414496
ok give me the third option for ethics I'm still waiting

>>25412663
the opposite question is the only real question
all your bullshit is about forms of slavery

>>25414498
I meant another false dichotomy, you dense motherfucker

third time you've posted this retarded thread, literally fuck off.

>>25414504
the dichotomy is not false, that's what you're not understanding.

>>25412663
ethics pertain to humans and tautologically we've always been present

>>25414517
no dichotomy is absolute. thats what youre not understanding

Christards seriously worry me when they think murder is suddenly okay because there's no omnipresent watcher. Truly the perfect race of slaves

>>25414428
someone can presup you by saying that causality is just something you assume, and it should be questioned.

the reason you lose is because the argument is about the existence of god, not the presupposition that god exists in your preferred frame of reference, from which you build your ontology and framework of knowledge. you cannot effectively debate epistemology since it is prior to logic, by definition - falling into the four categories i outlined.

by your account an atheist should be unable to make any argumentation, lacking a sufficient grounding. the atheist should then use a presuppositional argument to attack your assumptions that grounding is required in order to form coherent argumentation. in doing so they reveal two things - one they can in fact make arguments, presuppositional ones, by mirroring yours - so it turns out you can make argumentation without a worldview or an incoherent one - this is called tit for tat strategy and quite common for learning algorithms to find some nice middle ground strategy for self-play.

having a meta-argument about grounding presupposes you are both using some shared common understanding, but we have reached an epistemological dead end, where simple incompatibility in word usage has made further discussion impossible. since you could have a meta-meta-argument about the meta-argument. if you say god is required a priori for an argument about god's existence to take place, you are conceding the point from the outset, by saying that god cannot be argued outside of god. which is the very thing in question.

it would be like arguing just war theory with a pacifist, it is a non-starter since a true pacifist rejects self-defense. so you cannot argue religion with a religious sophist, as a true religious sophist rejects the possibility of the non-existence of god, as their position in this case religious sophistry, presupposes god's existence and it is this presupposition, brought about by mystical divine revelation, which informs their worldview and not vice versa.

the presupposition of argumentation is that from the simplest axioms truths can be constructed. this is constructivism, which has its own unique epistemological foundations which are unquestioned in our current global paradigm of pragmatism/materialism.

using presup transcendentals rejects argumentation, since transcendentals are infinitely complex and simple, in a monad, diad, or triadic form. this problem was called squaring the circle in antiquity, and all philosophy rejects this level of argumentation as sophistry, and this is why idealism is always look at with suspicion because it can fall into it easily if taken to extremes.

Ethics are a particular society or similar group of people's view of good/just or bad/unjust behaviors. The arbiter is the group.

Morality is either a personalized or religious view of good/righteous and bad/evil.

To illustrate the difference, US society thinks being a whore on only fans is ethical behavior, which is to say it doesn't violate an ethical standard established by the society. I however believe that being a whore is immoral, and so do some religions.

>>25414532
>no dichotomy is absolute
>THE DICHOTOMY IS FALSE!

>>25412663
If ethical facts are properties of nature or flow logically from such properties then no scient arbiter is needed at all. (This is not, however, the case).

>>25414414
If I'm "repeating" anyone it's Hume. No serious philosopher has ever adopted or put forward anything resembling Jay Dyer's transcendental argument for the existence of God. Plenty of philosophers, including Hume, believed that morality is subjective and rooted in emotion. YOU are the one putting forward ideas found solely on the internet, pushed solely by e-celebs.

There is nothing incoherent about saying morality is just an emotion.

>>25413390
>Why?
Because they're affirming the consequent.
The bible also can not be the "only possible worldview" as the bible is wrong about the world. It says the world is flat, that all people and all animals come from a single breeding pair only a few thousand years ago with is mathematically impossible, that stars are little lights on the inside of a dome firmament, the gospels all contradict each other and get facts wrong, the bible in general contradicts itself all over the place and says false stuff about the world.
The bible is internally inconsistent and factually incorrect about its claims and thus it can not be the basis to consistent thought or factually correct worldview.