what is real?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]It makes no sense to claim that your mother is ground zero for all morality because she is just a human being. Unless you are claiming that your mother is the immutable , omnipotent uncaused cause of all reality? I know mothers can be very powerful characters in many cultures............. but really?
WTF has (supposedly) being uncaused creator of univ ...[text shortened]... jective than my own. (again...I don't personally hold a positive belief in objective morality)[/b]

WTF has (supposedly) being uncaused creator of universes got to do with it???
-----agerg---------------

I'm surprised you don't realise. God is the source of OMFs then his righteous nature underlies all known reality (or unknown for that matter). God , by definition , is the ultimate reality of all realities. So if his nature is holy and righteous it erm....(and I would have thought this was obvious)..........makes a huge difference to everything.

The belief that God is moral and holy in Judaism is a bold statement about the nature of all existence. It is saying that everything in the universe rests upon a foundation of holiness. It is saying that one day the physical universe will melt away only to leave God's holy nature as THE fact of all existence. And that fact will not be morally neutral. That's why it's got a lot to do with it.

Now , your mother is just a human being ...so there is LOL a slight difference.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]It makes no sense to claim that your mother is ground zero for all morality because she is just a human being. Unless you are claiming that your mother is the immutable , omnipotent uncaused cause of all reality? I know mothers can be very powerful characters in many cultures............. but really?
WTF has (supposedly) being uncaused creator of univ ...[text shortened]... jective than my own. (again...I don't personally hold a positive belief in objective morality)[/b]

--> *I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM* <-- (running out of ways to emphasise that further), even if your god exists, that it's sense of morality is any less subjective than my own. (again...I don't personally hold a positive belief in objective morality)
---------------agerg----------------------------

God doesn't have a "sense" of morality as such - he is morality. He is the indisputable reality of all reality.

Anyway , since you say that you do not believe in objective morality then you cannot say that flaying babies is objectively and absolutely morally wrong can you? All you can say is that in your subjective opinion you think it is disagreeable , but in reality you cannot stand in judgement over me if I flay a baby and think to yourself " this person is less moral than me". It's simply your opinion and nothing else - just like you saying that you hate the Rolling Stones or something.

Anyway , since you say that you do not believe in objective morality then you cannot say that flaying babies is objectively and absolutely morally wrong can you? All you can say is that in your subjective opinion you think it is disagreeable , but in reality you cannot stand in judgement over me if I flay a baby and think to yourself " this person is less moral than me". It's simply your opinion and nothing else - just like you saying that you hate the Rolling Stones or something.

That's clearly fatuous. Our (yours, mine, Aqerq's etc.) shared concept or morality, be it objectively factual or merely evolved and agreed, would judge your actions to be morally unacceptable.

Another pointless beating head against a brick wall reply to you on this subject. Your logic is flawed, tragically flawed.

The one utterly ridiculous premise that "creators of universes *are* morality" is a brute fact underpins your entire argument. You argue that there is only one objective sense of morality (or entity which is morality), namely "God". You then deduce from your original premise, we atheists cannot believe in OMFs without some similar creator of the universe or externally supernatural agent with which to ground them on.

Again, I completely and unequivocally fail to accept your claim that "God *is* morality". You haven't justified it in any way other than by decree, and as such it is thoroughly baseless. (I assume you don't understand what I mean here).

You might as well claim that oranges are morality; primarily because they are orange.

Originally posted by knightmeister
WTF has (supposedly) being uncaused creator of universes got to do with it???
-----agerg---------------

I'm surprised you don't realise. God is the source of OMFs then his righteous nature underlies all known reality (or unknown for that matter). God , by definition , is the ultimate reality of all realities. So if his nature is holy and righteous h it.

Now , your mother is just a human being ...so there is LOL a slight difference.

I'm surprised you don't realise. God is the source of OMFs then his righteous nature underlies all known reality (or unknown for that matter). God , by definition , is the ultimate reality of all realities. So if his nature is holy and righteous it erm....(and I would have thought this was obvious)..........makes a huge difference to everything.
Circular logic alert:

Assume holy and righteous to imply objectively moral to imply holy and righteous to imply objectively moral to imply holy and righteous to imply ...... to imply holy and righteous to imply objectively moral to imply... 😞

I see no reason why creators of universes can't be utter b*stards if they wanted to be so. (ie: not holy & righteous, assuming you exclude being a complete git from your definition of these terms)

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]I'm surprised you don't realise. God is the source of OMFs then his righteous nature underlies all known reality (or unknown for that matter). God , by definition , is the ultimate reality of all realities. So if his nature is holy and righteous it erm....(and I would have thought this was obvious)..........makes a huge difference to everything.
Circul ...[text shortened]... y & righteous, assuming you exclude being a complete git from your definition of these terms)[/b]

Of course God could be an utter b'stard and fooling us all on some merry dance. That's not the point. The issue is about the internal coherency of a belief system and it's consistency.

If an Atheist believes that there are actual OMFs then this has certain logical implications.

For me a belief in the Christian God (as portayed , who is not a b'stard) is consistent with stating that OMFs exist for the reasons I have said above in this thread.

If I claimed that my belief was that the Universe was made of jelly at some sub atomic level then I would it would be consistent of me to state that there was such a thing as objective , external wobbliness and that this was a quality of existence and not just a subjective opinion or experience.

You would of course be free to disagree with my jelly theory but you could not dispute the internal consistency of my position. Whereas , when you say that your mother could be the arbitrary source of all morality this makes little sense to me because it doesn't seem internally consistent unless you claim that your mother is some kind of supernatural force or being or some other fundamental aspect of reality.

The issue is that if I was an Atheist I could not feel that I was being consistent if I claimed that there was such a thing as an OMF. I couldn't reconcile it , so I'm curious about those who seem to say that the Universe is amoral but still cling to some idea of objective morality that cannot be disputed.

Originally posted by Agerg
Another pointless beating head against a brick wall reply to you on this subject. Your logic is flawed, tragically flawed.

The one utterly ridiculous premise that "creators of universes *are* morality" is a brute fact underpins your entire argument. You argue that there is only one objective sense of morality (or entity which is morality), namely "God". You

You might as well claim that oranges are morality; primarily because they are orange.

You might as well claim that oranges are morality; primarily because they are orange.
-------agerg----------------------

Now we are getting somewhere. If I claimed that oranges were morality or were OMFs what implications would that have for oranges and morality? What about worlds where no oranges existed? Would morality exist on the moon for example? If oranges died out or were evolutionarily extinct would moral values change? would lemons take over? Presumably then what is good moral and just would only be temporary and always changing.

You would of course expect that OMFs and moral values of what is right and wrong would be true for all time and all places (Like the laws of physics maybe) , but a morality that went away because oranges were no more would not be an objective truth like 2+2=4 is true. Or maybe you think that if oranges had never existed at all then killing babies might be Ok?

This is why the idea of basing morality in an external , eternal unchanging God makes more sense - it's certainly a different deal than oranges , but you seem to think that there's no difference - why is that?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That's clearly fatuous. Our (yours, mine, Aqerq's etc.) shared concept or morality, be it objectively factual or merely evolved and agreed, would judge your actions to be morally unacceptable.

That's true . But would judging my actions as "unacceptable" be the same as saying that I was objectively and absolutely wrong?

In any case there are cases where we know that human beings do cause and have caused terrible , terrible harm to small children and babies causing immense suffering but we don't necessarily condemn their actions as "unacceptable".

The pilots of enola gay were not put in prison for their actions , nor are many soldiers and pilots in Iraq or other war zones. Whilst images of a child running down the street with her back scorching from napalm come to mind I might remind you that what men see as "unacceptable " always comes with a caveat or get out clause when it comes to matters of state , territory and warfare.

So it seems even your idea of a so called OMF is riddled with flaws. Interestingly , the morality that Jesus portrayed to the world suggested that there are NO justifications or rationalisations possible to justify violence towards one's brother let alone small children. Therefore , I still think there is a case to answer , because without OMFs everything becomes relative and subject to get out clauses and there might be cases where you could not judge my actions as "unacceptable" and the sit back and listen to choruses of approval from all corners of humanity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You might as well claim that oranges are morality; primarily because they are orange.
-------agerg----------------------

Now we are getting somewhere. If I claimed that oranges were morality or were OMFs what implications would that have for oranges and morality? What about worlds where no oranges existed? Would morality exist on the moon for exam different deal than oranges , but you seem to think that there's no difference - why is that?

This is why the idea of basing morality in an external , eternal unchanging God makes more sense - it's certainly a different deal than oranges , but you seem to think that there's no difference - why is that?
It doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me if you want my honest opinion. If I ask you why your God's morality is objective you claim by decree that that's just the way it is. Similarly I might as well say that now I have the conceptualisation of an orange I decree that oranges are morality.

Why? Because they are orange!...that's why.

and if the means to produce oranges came to an end it wouldn't matter. I know of a fruit that is orange, it is called an "orange". This orange will always be the source of morals, furthermore I claim with equal justification as you with Bible God's eternal existence, that oranges will appear again in physical form elsewhere in the universe, and that they always exist in some supernatural realm.

Again...You assert that your God is ground zero for morality; and this is a completely arbitrary choice (especially if such a god is infact a nasty piece of work).

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]This is why the idea of basing morality in an external , eternal unchanging God makes more sense - it's certainly a different deal than oranges , but you seem to think that there's no difference - why is that?
It doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me if you want my honest opinion. If I ask you why your God's morality is objective you claim by decree ...[text shortened]... form elsewhere in the universe, and that they always exist in some supernatural realm.[/b]

But being oranges , they are orange for a reason are they not? They are dependent on forces of nature which create orangeness and fruits. Therefore , logically the morailty which you think might stem from oranges or have oranges as their source would actually be rooted somewhere else in the forces that caused oranges to exist in the first place.

You would in effect , need to look a little deeper to find the source of objective morality because such a morality that could be said to be truely objective and unchanging and indisputable , permeating all of existence would need to be grounded in what brought forth oranges and orangness.

It would be like looking to apples as the source of gravity because one hit Newton on the head. Gravity only makes sense as a true objective fact because we believe it is interlinked with the very laws of physics which were present at the birth of the the universe. If we believed that the objective fact of gravity was based on apples , well , that would be VERY different.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But being oranges , they are orange for a reason are they not? They are dependent on forces of nature which create orangeness and fruits. Therefore , logically the morailty which you think might stem from oranges or have oranges as their source would actually be rooted somewhere else in the forces that caused oranges to exist in the first place.

Yo ...[text shortened]... ed that the objective fact of gravity was based on apples , well , that would be VERY different.

nah...I prefer not to dwell on the details. That they're orange is good enough for me. Furthermore, my claim that they always exist in a supernatural realm makes my position immune to your objection about their origins in this physical universe.

The same is true for you; your god could be a thoroughly nasty and horrible entity that creates us just for sick and secret pleasures yet whatever dispicable acts it performs they are still morally perfect.

If of course you'd like to give me a non-circular and rigourous justification (beyond your faith and belief in holy books) for why creators of universes necessarily have to be morally unsurpassed I might change my view (I asked a similar question in a thread titled "What stops creators of universes from being twisted sadistic fiends" about a page down. It was intended for you and was inspired by this thread)

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's true . But would judging my actions as "unacceptable" be the same as saying that I was objectively and absolutely wrong?

In any case there are cases where we know that human beings do cause and have caused terrible , terrible harm to small children and babies causing immense suffering but we don't necessarily condemn their actions as "unacce ...[text shortened]... le" and the sit back and listen to choruses of approval from all corners of humanity.

Welcome to the 'real' world!

Originally posted by knightmeister

so I'm curious about those who seem to say that the Universe is amoral but still cling to some idea of objective morality that cannot be disputed.
You still haven't understood that nobody is saying that I see. Perhaps you are in some kind of cognitive black hole 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
nah...I prefer not to dwell on the details. That they're orange is good enough for me. Furthermore, my claim that they always exist in a supernatural realm makes my position immune to your objection about their origins in this physical universe.

The same is true for you; your god could be a thoroughly nasty and horrible entity that creates us just for sick ...[text shortened]... sadistic fiends" about a page down. It was intended for you and was inspired by this thread)

nah...I prefer not to dwell on the details. That they're orange is good enough for me. Furthermore, my claim that they always exist in a supernatural realm makes my position immune to your objection about their origins in this physical universe.
----agerg-------------

But would you at least notice one thing - You had to place your oranges into a supernatural realm in order to give your argument consistency and validity. You also had to make your oranges eternal and unchanging.

In effect , you had to create an orange god of some sort. You could not base a consistent indusputable in a plain ol' little fruit. It HAD to be somethig much more than just a fruit.

It could be a nasty orange god or a nice one , but it couldn't just be a fruit.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister

[b]so I'm curious about those who seem to say that the Universe is amoral but still cling to some idea of objective morality that cannot be disputed.
You still haven't understood that nobody is saying that I see. Perhaps you are in some kind of cognitive black hole 🙂[/b]

People DO believe this - it's just that they don't realise it. They haven't thought through the implications of what they say they believe.