Is morality objective or subjective?

[Lorikeet]

Morality/Ethics..
how about pure/applied, i.e.
pure ethics [morality] / applied ethics.

what is pure ethics [morality] are moral elements evolved and inherent within human nature.
Applied ethics is how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral elements to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.

Morality begins with the act.
Men encode these acts calling them "moral", and then make amendments to them, depending on their objectives.

Nihilism attempts to negate morals/ethics as they've been defined by Abrahamism.
It's the only ethical codes they know.
Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.
The immorality of in-group violence is not based on human tastes but on the fact that in-group violence decreases group cohesion and harmony, nullifying the advantages of cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Compare them to ethical rules against adultery, or even abortinos....here men intervene to make adjustments to human nature, so as to accentuate an advantage:
Monogamy, for example, integrates individuals into the group and makes them investors......and rules against abortions or promiscuity attempt to control human behaviours that reduce a group's cohesion and competitiveness: a group's overall fitness.

None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.
No god required, although the concept of God becomes a method of enforcing these moral/ethical rules.

[Skepdick]

Apparently there's a multiverse; or at the very least - the many worlds interpretations to go with.

Well done Skepdick, you've stumbled across another wikipedia page. Now you can tell Immanuel Can all about it.

I am telling you. It's pretty ironic that a "philosopher of science" has to start at Wikipedia.

The same place my 8 year old niece starts.

[Will Bouwman]

Apparently there's a multiverse; or at the very least - the many worlds interpretations to go with.

Well done Skepdick, you've stumbled across another wikipedia page. Now you can tell Immanuel Can all about it.

I am telling you. It's pretty ironic that a "philosopher of science" has to start at Wikipedia.

The same place my 8 year old niece starts.

Get your niece to teach you some logic then.

[Skepdick]

Well done Skepdick, you've stumbled across another wikipedia page. Now you can tell Immanuel Can all about it.

I am telling you. It's pretty ironic that a "philosopher of science" has to start at Wikipedia.

The same place my 8 year old niece starts.

Get your niece to teach you some logic then.

Knowledge works a bit like an osmotic gradient...

If she's talking to me - she's going to be learning logic.
If she's talking to you - she's going to be teaching logic.

[Will Bouwman]

If she's talking to me - she's going to be learning logic.

[Skepdick]

If she's talking to me - she's going to be learning logic.

Aren't you lucky? Next time you see her - she'll be able to teach you even more.

[phyllo]

Whatever "jiggery pockery and nonsense" IC has ...

The idea that God can know the future without the future being predetermined is pretty common in religion and Christianity.

But what is 'common' certainly does not mean that 'it' is even remotely close to the actual Truth of things.

Sure. It may be false.

If God, a claimed male gender thing, created the whole Universe, as some very immature and very closed individual human beings think or believe, then 'the future' was always 'predetermined' by that very 'thing'.

The fact that God created it all and God had foresight on how it would all turn out, does introduce lots of complications. Which most people here are not interested in tackling.

Is anyone able to explain how God, if God created the Universe with the intention of all living in peace and harmony forever more, could 'know the future' without the future being predetermined?

To me anyway, to claim that one could 'know a not predetermined future' is just self-contradictory.

Apparently, you are not the only one to think so.

However, in saying this, this does not change the irrefutable fact that 'free will' still exists in the 'predetermined future', nor the fact that morality is both subjective and objective.

Ah, irrefutable.

Of course, one can disagree and argue against it in a number of ways.

If a 'standard line of thinking' can actually be argued against, then it is invalid and/or unsound 'line of thinking'.

One can argue against practically anything, whether it is sound or unsound.

[Will Bouwman]

Aren't you lucky? Next time you see her - she'll be able to teach you even more.

Are you sure she's not your big sister?

[Immanuel Can]

Anyway, back to your impact on eternity. Will your entry make any difference?

Well, that question presupposes a misunderstanding of what salvation is. Salvation isn't just then...it's already now.

Jesus said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

So does God create souls knowing which ones will hear Jesus's word on a rolling basis? Or did he create them all at once?

Well, the Pantheists can imagine some sort of "bank" of souls, from which individual souls can be "enfleshed." For the Pantheists, "soul" cannot be either created or destroyed, because they're all shards of the "universal soul." I suppose that's what you're thinking of?

But that's an imagining the Bible does not invite.

Did it make a "difference"? I'm not sure what "difference" you're looking for: a "difference" between what and what? Between life and death? Absolutely.

Ah, past tense. So there was a point when you weren't saved and now you are.[/quote] That's exactly what the Bible says is the case.

You attribute this to your own effort,...

Not at all. Quite the contrary. See Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. Our own efforts are not effective in our salvation...that's exactly what the Christian means when he talks about "salvation" or says, "we need to be saved." You don't "get saved" by saving yourself.

...yours is the kind of soul a supreme being wants to have an eternal relationship with.

So is yours. As Peter tells us, He is "...patient... and not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

[Immanuel Can]

Not that you would be brave enough to clarify here ...

Sorry, Age...I prefer to have a discussion partner who exhibits some modicum of ability to reason, and some tiny spirit of self-awareness. And I'm sorry to say, that's just not you, apparently. You've made that very, very clear from our previous conversation.

Without those things, discussion of any kind is pointless...and I have better things to do.

[Age]

Not that you would be brave enough to clarify here ...

Sorry, Age...I prefer to have a discussion partner who exhibits some modicum of ability to reason, and some tiny spirit of self-awareness. And I'm sorry to say, that's just not you, apparently. You've made that very, very clear from our previous conversation.

Without those things, discussion of any kind is pointless...and I have better things to do.

Once again this one is not brave enough to just be open and honest here, but this is just because if "immanuel can" were, then it knows that it would only end up contradicting "itself", completely.

Just look at how simple the clarifying is that I asked it, and then look at how much effort it puts in in trying to deflect and trying to deceive you readers here.

All I asked is if God is male gendered, as you keep claiming It is, then is this a 'religious' construct or the actual reality, itself?

[phyllo]

Not that you would be brave enough to clarify here but remember it is you who keeps claiming that God is male gendered. So, is this a 'religious' construct or the actual reality, itself?

God used to be a guy with a wife.

Then God became non-binary.

[Age]

Whatever "jiggery pockery and nonsense" IC has ...

The idea that God can know the future without the future being predetermined is pretty common in religion and Christianity.

But what is 'common' certainly does not mean that 'it' is even remotely close to the actual Truth of things.

Sure. It may be false.

If God, a claimed male gender thing, created the whole Universe, as some very immature and very closed individual human beings think or believe, then 'the future' was always 'predetermined' by that very 'thing'.

The fact that God created it all and God had foresight on how it would all turn out, does introduce lots of complications. Which most people here are not interested in tackling.

I am more than very ready to and wanting to provide insight into any perceived complication perceived anywhere here, if anyone would like to share any issues that they have or are tackling with here.

Is anyone able to explain how God, if God created the Universe with the intention of all living in peace and harmony forever more, could 'know the future' without the future being predetermined?

To me anyway, to claim that one could 'know a not predetermined future' is just self-contradictory.

Apparently, you are not the only one to think so.

However, in saying this, this does not change the irrefutable fact that 'free will' still exists in the 'predetermined future', nor the fact that morality is both subjective and objective.

Ah, irrefutable.

It is funny to watch and observe just how many people completely dismiss me here when I say I have the irrefutable facts or Truths. And, what makes this more funnier to play out is these people did this without ever challenging nor questioning me.

One would have thought that the adult human being would have learned, and evolved and matured enough, by 'now', when this was being written, to actually become inquisitive, again, and question things, rather than just go off, or go on, what one was 'currently' assuming or believing to be true instead

Surely the story about back in the 'olden days' when one knew the irrefutable fact and Truth about the earth in relation to the sun and how everyone else just dismissed 'that one', and about what they all were doing to try to deflect, deceive, and/or to discredit 'that one', would have been a lesson, learned, in what to not do, and in regards to what to do going forward into the future, when even perceived 'unbelievable' claims or knowledge is brought forth.

But, as they say, 'some just never learn', collectively and individually by the way.

Of course, one can disagree and argue against it in a number of ways.

If a 'standard line of thinking' can actually be argued against, then it is invalid and/or unsound 'line of thinking'.

One can argue against practically anything, whether it is sound or unsound.

But, and obviously, absolutely no one can logically argue validly nor soundly against an already sound and valid argument.

Only what is not yet a sound and valid argument can be, logically, argued against.

[Immanuel Can]

Once again...

I'm sorry, Age...Given your history here, I just don't care enough about your opinion to be bothered.

Carry on. I know you will.

[Age]

Not that you would be brave enough to clarify here but remember it is you who keeps claiming that God is male gendered. So, is this a 'religious' construct or the actual reality, itself?

God used to be a guy with a wife.

Then God became non-binary.

Is this what "immanuel can" used to claim, and also does now, 'currently'?