Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

So God created a living creature, and made him free to make choices. What about the internal mechanism that guided this creature's decision making; did God not design and create that, also?

The soul isn't a "mechanism," so we mustn't fool ourselves with a false analogy there.

I'm not talking about souls; I don't believe in souls. I'm talking about the workings of the mind; the metaphorical cogs that turn when we think, and make decisions.

Well, the assumption in your question is that "mind" is physical...or as you say, it's like "cogs." And determinism is baked into your question, too...it says that we are made to "make decisions" by "workings" of these "metaphorical cogs that turn." But that's erroneous: mind is not a physical entity. You cannot divide it into pieces, or weigh it in scales, or measure it with calipers, and it doesn't have parts, like a machine has. Moreoever it's clearly not deterministically controlled; for if it were, we would have no genuine identity, freedom or thoughts of our own.

So again...

A more apt analogys is the one I suggested: creating a child.

I've participated in the creation of two children, neither of which I was give the opportunity to design.

Well, in a manner of speaking, you did. It was you and your wife who were involved, no? And the child bore your resemblances, your habits, and so on, even from a young age. But they weren't machines.

It all seems so senseless and pointless. We soon learn that our actions have consequences, but the consequences in this case are not natural, or even logical, they are purely a result of the arbitrary disposition of God.

That's not actually how it is, of course. What God prescribes to us is precisely what's best for us and what is also what is most natural and good for us. It's not "arbitrary" at all.

What you have to understand, H., is that a human being is a creature whose ideal destiny is to become a friend of God. There's nothing higher, healthier, better or more satisfying to the soul than to realize that potential. It's only when we fail to understand that, and start to think that our actual good consists in something lower -- like money, or fame, or having something we desire, or impressing people, or getting plaudits, or arranging our own security, or establishing a legacy on our own terms -- that we find we are frustrated and unfulfilled.

But that is precisely because we have not responded to our own best destiny. We are not what we imagine we are; and that fact is due to our fallenness: we have forgotten what we are really here for, and so we find nothing satisfying.

I think it was Pascal who said that "every man has a God-shaped hole in him." Even when we don't acknowledge that, we will never be satisfied until that void is filled.

[Harbal]

The soul isn't a "mechanism," so we mustn't fool ourselves with a false analogy there.

I'm not talking about souls; I don't believe in souls. I'm talking about the workings of the mind; the metaphorical cogs that turn when we think, and make decisions.

Well, the assumption in your question is that "mind" is physical...or as you say, it's like "cogs." And determinism is baked into your question, too...it says that we are made to "make decisions" by "workings" of these "metaphorical cogs that turn." But that's erroneous: mind is not a physical entity. You cannot divide it into pieces, or weigh it in scales, or measure it with calipers, and it doesn't have parts, like a machine has. Moreoever it's clearly not deterministically controlled; for if it were, we would have no genuine identity, freedom or thoughts of our own.

But whatever a human mind is, it must have been designed by God, according to what you have said previously. So how can God not be responsible for how it works?

It all seems so senseless and pointless. We soon learn that our actions have consequences, but the consequences in this case are not natural, or even logical, they are purely a result of the arbitrary disposition of God.

That's not actually how it is, of course. What God prescribes to us is precisely what's best for us and what is also what is most natural and good for us. It's not "arbitrary" at all.

What you have to understand, H., is that a human being is a creature whose ideal destiny is to become a friend of God. There's nothing higher, healthier, better or more satisfying to the soul than to realize that potential. It's only when we fail to understand that, and start to think that our actual good consists in something lower -- like money, or fame, or having something we desire, or impressing people, or getting plaudits, or arranging our own security, or establishing a legacy on our own terms -- that we find we are frustrated and unfulfilled.

But that is precisely because we have not responded to our own best destiny. We are not what we imagine we are; and that fact is due to our fallenness: we have forgotten what we are really here for, and so we find nothing satisfying.

I think it was Pascal who said that "every man has a God-shaped hole in him." Even when we don't acknowledge that, we will never be satisfied until that void is filled.

What a load of rot, IC. I'm sorry, but it really is.

I'm just glad it isn't my rot.

[Immanuel Can]

But whatever a human mind is, it must have been designed by God, according to what you have said previously. So how can God not be responsible for how it works?

Because it is not deterministic, just like your children. They have their own wills. You may have produced them, but you are not micromanaging them. And you are not the cause of what they choose to do with their own wills. That's what it means for them to have a will, a volition and an identity of their own.

[Harbal]

But whatever a human mind is, it must have been designed by God, according to what you have said previously. So how can God not be responsible for how it works?

Because it is not deterministic, just like your children. They have their own wills. You may have produced them, but you are not micromanaging them. And you are not the cause of what they choose to do with their own wills. That's what it means for them to have a will, a volition and an identity of their own.

That's a false analogy. I didn't design my children. If God created human beings, he is responsible for whatever they do. You can't present it in any way that makes any sense, because it is just an absurd story, invented by primitive, ignorant people. I still find it hard to accept that you believe all that rubbish, and I am by no means convinced that you actually do.

[attofishpi]

Adrienne Greene

"Yes, God knew Adam and Eve would sin before he created them. Isaiah quoted a statement from the Lord to show us: “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.) In addition to being omnipotent, God is also omniscient (unlimited knowledge), so he knows everything that pertains to the earth and everyone on it from beginning to end. It’s a head-scratcher, I know. Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

Over and again, the Christian Bible provides us example after example of Divine behavior that can only be accounted for by pointing out over and over again that "God works in mysterious ways".

I'll say at the outset, that God is omnipotent to our perceivable reality. I don't agree that God is omniscient to the point of knowing ALL of the future.

RE:- “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.)

No doubt God has concepts of what it wants to occur at points in time in the future, this is where the 'will' of God, affects the 'deterministic' universe, to conform to its will. This would include the timing of injecting Christ to within our reality around 2000 years ago.

RE: Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

God never created Adam and Eve, nor the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. It was simply a very important story to set in motion for contemplation of future generations.

[iambiguous]

Adrienne Greene

"Yes, God knew Adam and Eve would sin before he created them. Isaiah quoted a statement from the Lord to show us: “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.) In addition to being omnipotent, God is also omniscient (unlimited knowledge), so he knows everything that pertains to the earth and everyone on it from beginning to end. It’s a head-scratcher, I know. Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

Over and again, the Christian Bible provides us example after example of Divine behavior that can only be accounted for by pointing out over and over again that "God works in mysterious ways".

I'll say at the outset, that God is omnipotent to our perceivable reality. I don't agree that God is omniscient to the point of knowing ALL of the future.

RE:- “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.)

No doubt God has concepts of what it wants to occur at points in time in the future, this is where the 'will' of God, affects the 'deterministic' universe, to conform to its will. This would include the timing of injecting Christ to within our reality around 2000 years ago.

RE: Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

God never created Adam and Eve, nor the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. It was simply a very important story to set in motion for contemplation of future generations.

On and on and on and on the religionists among us make countless claims about what "in their heads" they think, they believe, they claim to know is true about God. But since there are a lot of them out there -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- what is of far, far, far more importance of course is who is able to actually demonstrate that their own God provides the one and the only passport to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

So, sure, I challenge them to provide this evidence. Evidence that goes beyond more leaps of faith or wagers or quoting from the Bible.

Otherwise, at least own up to the fact that you believe what you do because it comforts and consoles you to believe it. Either that or you were indoctrinated as a child to believe what comforts and consoles others.

[attofishpi]

Adrienne Greene

"Yes, God knew Adam and Eve would sin before he created them. Isaiah quoted a statement from the Lord to show us: “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.) In addition to being omnipotent, God is also omniscient (unlimited knowledge), so he knows everything that pertains to the earth and everyone on it from beginning to end. It’s a head-scratcher, I know. Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

Over and again, the Christian Bible provides us example after example of Divine behavior that can only be accounted for by pointing out over and over again that "God works in mysterious ways".

I'll say at the outset, that God is omnipotent to our perceivable reality. I don't agree that God is omniscient to the point of knowing ALL of the future.

RE:- “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.)

No doubt God has concepts of what it wants to occur at points in time in the future, this is where the 'will' of God, affects the 'deterministic' universe, to conform to its will. This would include the timing of injecting Christ to within our reality around 2000 years ago.

RE: Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

God never created Adam and Eve, nor the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. It was simply a very important story to set in motion for contemplation of future generations.

...since there are a lot of them out there -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- what is of far, far, far more importance of course is who is able to actually demonstrate that their own God provides the one and the only passport to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

What makes you think religion is required for moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not at all. It's what any Atheist is required by his own belief system to believe. I certainly don't want him to do it.

But he has to believe that this universe came into existence by accident...that it came without any purpose...that it was not "intended" by anyone or anything to go to any particular future...that everything is doomed to extinction...and that there are no objective rules in the meanwhile for how one conducts oneself.

If not every Atheist believes this, it's only because not every Atheist is thinking clearly. But their creed demands it of them, if they are to be rational and consistent.

Again it is your supposition that "But he has to believe that this universe came into existence by accident..."

No, if he's an Atheist, he HAS to think that's the case.

He has to think that an accident called "the Big Bang" or more correctly, some accidental thing prior to the BB, is the ultimate, final and only real explanation for why this universe exists. If he thinks there's any other entity, anything deliberate, intelligent, purposeful, and so on, and then refers to that, then he's stopped being an Atheist at all. He's now some kind of religionist...a polytheist, a pantheist, a gnostic...or some other such thing.

VA: That is your own 'supposition' that non-theists are 'supposing we're in a giant cosmic accident'; this reflect your intellectual immaturity.
Again it is your supposition "he [non-theists] HAS to think that's the case" i.e. the Big Bang as a giant cosmic accident.

The majority of non-theists do not "think" by themselves of the Big Bang Theory.
They merely rely on the credibility and objectivity of the cosmologists inferring from the Cosmological Model [Framework and System of Knowledge].

The cosmological FSK has the provision that the BB may be caused by something prior infinitely.
However, the Principle of the scientific-cosmological FSK is confined to merely infer and conclude as far as the empirical evidences [direct and indirect] can support it.
Thus the cosmological FSK merely conclude this or that event happened without any qualification that it is an accident.

The problem in this case is theists by their inherent nature cannot live with the idea of an infinite regress [due to serious psychology], while the non-theists are indifferent to it either by rationalizing it with critical thinking as a natural idea or ignoring it [for various reasons].

If you can sustain equanimity [peace of mind] with the idea of infinite regress you would not be bothered with claiming the BB is a giant cosmic accident.

It is the very-disturbed-mind of theists that they have to cling to an illusory God to soothe the related cognitive dissonances.
Therefrom in the extreme, theists will kill those who oppose their beliefs that threatened their established psychological security.

[iambiguous]

On and on and on and on the religionists among us make countless claims about what "in their heads" they think, they believe, they claim to know is true about God. But since there are a lot of them out there -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- what is of far, far, far more importance of course is who is able to actually demonstrate that their own God provides the one and the only passport to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

So, sure, I challenge them to provide this evidence. Evidence that goes beyond more leaps of faith or wagers or quoting from the Bible.

Otherwise, at least own up to the fact that you believe what you do because it comforts and consoles you to believe it. Either that or you were indoctrinated as a child to believe what comforts and consoles others.

What makes you think religion is required for moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.?

Sure, there are any number of One True Paths to Enlightenment that eschew God and religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Same thing though. Demonstrate that one of them provides us with objective morality and immortality beyond the grave.






Note to others:

Of course I'm in entertainment mode.

[Immanuel Can]

But whatever a human mind is, it must have been designed by God, according to what you have said previously. So how can God not be responsible for how it works?

Because it is not deterministic, just like your children. They have their own wills. You may have produced them, but you are not micromanaging them. And you are not the cause of what they choose to do with their own wills. That's what it means for them to have a will, a volition and an identity of their own.

That's a false analogy. I didn't design my children.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "design."

They were "designed" at your decision, with your chosen partner, on the occasion you chose, using your DNA and hers (but nobody else's). In all those senses, you are their "creator." But they were not machines, and you did not predetermine their choices for them. What you generated were free agents.

And if you could do it, what's the wonder that God could?

[attofishpi]

On and on and on and on the religionists among us make countless claims about what "in their heads" they think, they believe, they claim to know is true about God. But since there are a lot of them out there -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- what is of far, far, far more importance of course is who is able to actually demonstrate that their own God provides the one and the only passport to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

So, sure, I challenge them to provide this evidence. Evidence that goes beyond more leaps of faith or wagers or quoting from the Bible.

Otherwise, at least own up to the fact that you believe what you do because it comforts and consoles you to believe it. Either that or you were indoctrinated as a child to believe what comforts and consoles others.

What makes you think religion is required for moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.?

Sure, there are any number of One True Paths to Enlightenment that eschew God and religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Same thing though. Demonstrate that one of them provides us with objective morality and immortality beyond the grave.

I don't believe any of them are required. I believe acting ethically in one's life may grant one the right to reincarnate as human rather than 666.

I do however believe that living according and belief in the life of Christ is key to understanding certain things about God, as drawn from my 26 years of esoteric experience.

Note to others:

Of course I'm in entertainment mode.

Why do you think anyone is interested in your immature condescension?

[Immanuel Can]

Again it is your supposition that "But he has to believe that this universe came into existence by accident..."

No, if he's an Atheist, he HAS to think that's the case.

He has to think that an accident called "the Big Bang" or more correctly, some accidental thing prior to the BB, is the ultimate, final and only real explanation for why this universe exists. If he thinks there's any other entity, anything deliberate, intelligent, purposeful, and so on, and then refers to that, then he's stopped being an Atheist at all. He's now some kind of religionist...a polytheist, a pantheist, a gnostic...or some other such thing.

VA: That is your own 'supposition' ...

Sorry. You're still wrong...even if you are now wrong in blue text, and redundantly.

Again it is your supposition "he [non-theists] HAS to think that's the case"

No: that's what Atheism requires its logical adherents to believe.

The problem in this case is theists by their inherent nature cannot live with the idea of an infinite regress

No: the problem is that mathematics can't. There can be no such thing, and maths demonstrates it decisively. You may not like that, and may wish it weren't true...but you can test it yourself, and you'll find I'm right, if you can do a basic mathematical operation.

You need to read up on the current research around the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. Then you'll actually have a chance of being right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, if he's an Atheist, he HAS to think that's the case.

He has to think that an accident called "the Big Bang" or more correctly, some accidental thing prior to the BB, is the ultimate, final and only real explanation for why this universe exists. If he thinks there's any other entity, anything deliberate, intelligent, purposeful, and so on, and then refers to that, then he's stopped being an Atheist at all. He's now some kind of religionist...a polytheist, a pantheist, a gnostic...or some other such thing.

VA: That is your own 'supposition' ...

Sorry. You're still wrong...even if you are now wrong in blue text, and redundantly.

The point in blue is a reminder of the original point.

Again it is your supposition "he [non-theists] HAS to think that's the case"

No: that's what Atheism requires its logical adherents to believe.

On whose authority is that?
I and many non-theists do not agree with it.

The problem in this case is theists by their inherent nature cannot live with the idea of an infinite regress

No: the problem is that mathematics can't. There can be no such thing, and maths demonstrates it decisively. You may not like that, and may wish it weren't true...but you can test it yourself, and you'll find I'm right, if you can do a basic mathematical operation.

Perhaps if we are doing certain mathematics, then one has to comply with its constitution which deny an infinite regress.
But we are not doing mathematics in this case but rather reality in general.

You need to read up on the current research around the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. Then you'll actually have a chance of being right.

Any references for the current [within the last 2 years] research?

At present I am refreshing on Kant's CPR.
Therein Kant presented the following;

• SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC BOOK II.
  Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
  Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
  Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518

The above cover the whole-of-reality [all there is], i.e.
1. Physical-theological - The whole empirical world
2. Cosmological - the whole Universe
3. Ontological - the whole of reality, i.e. existence.

The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is a half-cooked argument for God
that began with the empirical, Physical
jumped to the abstracted conceptual cause -Cosmological
which then implied the cause and conclude God exists as real based on the ontological.

There is no room for a God within the whole-of-reality in this case a Cosmological God to be real.

[Harbal]

Because it is not deterministic, just like your children. They have their own wills. You may have produced them, but you are not micromanaging them. And you are not the cause of what they choose to do with their own wills. That's what it means for them to have a will, a volition and an identity of their own.

That's a false analogy. I didn't design my children.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "design."

They were "designed" at your decision, with your chosen partner, on the occasion you chose, using your DNA and hers (but nobody else's). In all those senses, you are their "creator." But they were not machines, and you did not predetermine their choices for them. What you generated were free agents.

And if you could do it, what's the wonder that God could?

An even bigger wonder is what some people are prepared to believe.

[Iwannaplato]

• SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC BOOK II.
  Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
  Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
  Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518

The above cover the whole-of-reality [all there is], i.e.
1. Physical-theological - The whole empirical world
2. Cosmological - the whole Universe
3. Ontological - the whole of reality, i.e. existence.

The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is a half-cooked argument for God
that began with the empirical, Physical
jumped to the abstracted conceptual cause -Cosmological
which then implied the cause and conclude God exists as real based on the ontological.

There is no room for a God within the whole-of-reality in this case a Cosmological God to be real.

The main problem with IC here is that he doesn't understand what an infinite regress is. He conflates infinite regress based arguments with the idea that something could be eternal. He's making a fundamental category error. He thinks that math can rule out certain ontologies, which, in the end, is just silly, but also he fails to understand what infinite regress is.

He adds to this by thinking that a cosmological argument has somehow settled the issue.

There are plenty of refutations:
https://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Phil ... gument.htm
https://onlysky.media/jpearce/obliterat ... -argument/
Here we have more of an overview:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosm ... laCosmArgu

No: the problem is that mathematics can't. There can be no such thing, and maths demonstrates it decisively. You may not like that, and may wish it weren't true...but you can test it yourself, and you'll find I'm right, if you can do a basic mathematical operation.

You need to read up on the current research around the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. Then you'll actually have a chance of being right.