Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

If God knew everything that would happen in this world, he created a world in which exactly those things happen.

Not so "obvious."

Glaringly obvious.

Now, if there are five paths before us, say, and we are genuinely free to choose among them, and God is sovereignly able to foresee all possible roads, then it is not at all the case that the only way God can manage the situation is by forcing us down one particular road.

I'll say it again:

I'm not suggesting there is any coercion from your God...

Either God knows which of the five roads we are going to choose, or he doesn't. If he does, that's the road we are going down. If we choose a road other than the one he 'knew' we would choose, he didn't know it.

[Age]

Nobody in your entire life, or anybody else's, made somebody DO something simply by KNOWING he would, Will. They're just different verbs.

I'm sure we both understand that make in itself is two different verbs: coerce and create.

Well, yes...and more, actually. "Make" has several synonyms. But none of them is "know."

I'm not suggesting there is any coercion from your God, although the threat of eternal damnation is close enough,

It's not. If fear of eternal damnation were any kind of coercion, wouldn't everybody capitulate to it? But on the contrary, people seem to need to be convinced of their peril in that regard, and don't at all take it for granted -- and that's the vast majority. So it seems it's very possible to resist that alleged "coercion."

If God knew everything that would happen in this world, he created a world in which exactly those things happen.

Not so "obvious."

It would only be true if the world He created ran on strictly Deterministic lines, with God's will being the only effective will (i.e. the will that can make choices that make a difference to things) in the universe. But as the Biblical account goes, God gave man free will; which means man's will is effective in the universe, too. While it is limited by his mortal limitedness, his boundedness by a body and a location, man's will is a microcosm of the divine will, in that it is a volition that can make a difference, too.

Now, if there are five paths before us, say, and we are genuinely free to choose among them, and God is sovereignly able to foresee all possible roads, then it is not at all the case that the only way God can manage the situation is by forcing us down one particular road. For example, you have the relationship of divine foreknowledge and human choice-making modelled in David's decision at the city of Keilah, in 1 Samuel 23. You have again Jesus Himself speaking of a division between what God would prefer and what human beings choose to do in Luke 13:34. And we could cite many, many more passages, including all that have to do with salvation, which emphasize the impossibility of salvation apart from human faith. So we're neck deep in evidence that what you're saying is nothing like the Biblical view.

What's very clear is that the Bible does not at all back a Deterministic view of the universe, but rather emphasizes the volitional freedom God has uniquely given to mankind...and for which all men are responsible.

So, this one here says that the bible, which is claimed to be written by God, does not at all back a so-called 'deterministic view', although the bible is also claimed to be an instruction of how to live in peace and harmony forever more.

[Immanuel Can]

Either God knows which of the five roads we are going to choose, or he doesn't.

He does. Just as I knew you'd reply. You could have chosen not to. You could have chosen to reply differently. But you replied as you saw fit, and I was quite right about my prediction.

But I didn't make you.

[popeye1945]

You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects?

We are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is everything is to elevate biology above all else and that is a second hand experience, not the way we experience life when we get right down to it.

That is a funny twist, not sure there is any credibility to it. No experience is second-hand. Experience is always true to the state of one's biology. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, apparent reality is a biological simulation or a biological readout of the energies of the physical world. There is only one way we experience, subjectively, and the merger of subject and object in one's biology creates your day-to-day reality or apparent reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects?

We are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is everything is to elevate biology above all else and that is a second hand experience, not the way we experience life when we get right down to it.

That is a funny twist, not sure there is any credibility to it. No experience is second-hand. Experience is always true to the state of one's biology. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, apparent reality is a biological simulation or a biological readout of the energies of the physical world. There is only one way we experience, subjectively, and the merger of subject and object in one's biology creates your day-to-day reality or apparent reality.

Philosophically, I believe the view is as follows;

Philosophical realism [PR] claim that things exist by themselves regardless of humans [subjects] i.e. mind-independent.

The ANTI-PRs oppose above PR's claims is not tenable, rather they claim somehow things exist with an inevitable relation to the human conditions.

The human conditions would include the biology of humans,
"Biology is the scientific study of life" WIKI
thus to claim "biology is the measure and the meaning of all things"
is too wide.
To bring in 'biology' is not wrong but is not very philosophical.

The philosopher Protagoras claimed
"man is the measure of all things"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
which is more realistic and covering the whole of the human conditions not "biology"-the scientific study of life.

[Gary Childress]

That is a funny twist, not sure there is any credibility to it. No experience is second-hand. Experience is always true to the state of one's biology. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, apparent reality is a biological simulation or a biological readout of the energies of the physical world. There is only one way we experience, subjectively, and the merger of subject and object in one's biology creates your day-to-day reality or apparent reality.

Fair enough.

[popeye1945]

We are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is everything is to elevate biology above all else and that is a second hand experience, not the way we experience life when we get right down to it.

That is a funny twist, not sure there is any credibility to it. No experience is second-hand. Experience is always true to the state of one's biology. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, apparent reality is a biological simulation or a biological readout of the energies of the physical world. There is only one way we experience, subjectively, and the merger of subject and object in one's biology creates your day-to-day reality or apparent reality.

Philosophically, I believe the view is as follows;
Philosophical realism [PR] claim that things exist by themselves regardless of humans [subjects] i.e. mind-independent.
The ANTI-PRs oppose above PR's claims is not tenable, rather they claim somehow things exist with an inevitable relation to human conditions.
The human conditions would include the biology of humans,
"Biology is the scientific study of life" WIKI
thus to claim "biology is the measure and the meaning of all things"
is too wide.

Things may exist mind-independent, but mind-dependent is the only way we come to know the world of objects, mainly because they alter our standing biology. However, I contend that we do not experience things as they are, only how they alter our biology. This gives us experience and knowledge of how it relates to that biology, thus we give it meanings relative to their effects upon us--- it is hard because we are soft. To claim biology is the measure and the meaning of all things is simply reality. Our apparent reality is a biological readout a melody if you like that the outer world plays upon us as its instrument, it is a melody only the biological subject perceives as its day-to-day reality. All meaning belongs to the conscious subject and never to the world as object, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.


To bring in 'biology' is not wrong but is not very philosophical.
The philosopher Protagoras claimed
"man is the measure of all things"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
which is more realistic and covering the whole of the human conditions not "biology"-the scientific study of life. [/quote]

Biology is the study of life by biology, for all measures and all meanings are biologically dependent. Biology as a subject and the physical world as object are the summation/the totality, of the human condition. Pythagoras whether he realized it or not was touching on the reality that free will is nonsense. Your behaviors encompass your entire experiences to the present going right back to that primordial pond or ocean, the complexity of existence is all-encompassing.

[Gary Childress]

That is a funny twist, not sure there is any credibility to it. No experience is second-hand. Experience is always true to the state of one's biology. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, apparent reality is a biological simulation or a biological readout of the energies of the physical world. There is only one way we experience, subjectively, and the merger of subject and object in one's biology creates your day-to-day reality or apparent reality.

Philosophically, I believe the view is as follows;
Philosophical realism [PR] claim that things exist by themselves regardless of humans [subjects] i.e. mind-independent.
The ANTI-PRs oppose above PR's claims is not tenable, rather they claim somehow things exist with an inevitable relation to human conditions.
The human conditions would include the biology of humans,
"Biology is the scientific study of life" WIKI
thus to claim "biology is the measure and the meaning of all things"
is too wide.

Things may exist mind-independent, but mind-dependent is the only way we come to know the world of objects, mainly because they alter our standing biology. However, I contend that we do not experience things as they are, only how they alter our biology. This gives us experience and knowledge of how it relates to that biology, thus we give it meanings relative to their effects upon us--- it is hard because we are soft. To claim biology is the measure and the meaning of all things is simply reality. Our apparent reality is a biological readout a melody if you like that the outer world plays upon us as its instrument, it is a melody only the biological subject perceives as its day-to-day reality. All meaning belongs to the conscious subject and never to the world as object, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.


To bring in 'biology' is not wrong but is not very philosophical.
The philosopher Protagoras claimed
"man is the measure of all things"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
which is more realistic and covering the whole of the human conditions not "biology"-the scientific study of life.

Biology is the study of life by biology, for all measures and all meanings are biologically dependent. Biology as a subject and the physical world as object are the summation/the totality, of the human condition. Pythagoras whether he realized it or not was touching on the reality that free will is nonsense. Your behaviors encompass your entire experiences to the present going right back to that primordial pond or ocean, the complexity of existence is all-encompassing.

Is the concept "biology" (itself) a part the way we experience the world but not a phenomena that is really there beyond our experience, meaning it is not an "in itself" phenomena? In other words, we may say we experience the world through biology, but biology itself perhaps doesn't exist outside of our experience?

[Will Bouwman]

Either God knows which of the five roads we are going to choose, or he doesn't.

He does. Just as I knew you'd reply. You could have chosen not to. You could have chosen to reply differently. But you replied as you saw fit, and I was quite right about my prediction.

The difference between God and you is that you made a prediction that happened to come true. Your God, on the other hand, did not predict that I would reply, he knew exactly how I would do so.

But I didn't make you.

That is not the issue. I predict that you will bury your head in the sand and pretend it is, but for the third time:

I'm not suggesting there is any coercion from your God...

Unless I am mistaken, the two premises represent your beliefs:

God knows everything that we will ever do
God gave us freewill to choose what we do
Therefore freewill is the freedom to choose exactly what God already knows we are going to do.

I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

God knows everything that we will ever do

Forgive my blundering into theology, but does God already know everything that he will ever know, or is some knowledge reserved for some future, even more knowledgeable God?

[Skepdick]

Forgive my blundering into theology, but does God already know everything that he will ever know, or is some knowledge reserved for some future, even more knowledgeable God?

That's the whole point of theologists defining god as "eternal".

So idiot-philosophers can quit playing these stupid, semantic, spatio-temporal games.

Anything that has a "future" is temporally bound. So your question is incoherent/inapplicable.

Problem? Design solution. No problem.
You don't like designed solution? It has new/different problems?
Design a better one with fewer problems.

You can't? Why does that even surprise you? You aren't omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent.

[Will Bouwman]

God knows everything that we will ever do

Forgive my blundering into theology...

There's no other way.

...but does God already know everything that he will ever know, or is some knowledge reserved for some future, even more knowledgeable God?

Your guess is as good as mine. I mean, God is eternal, yet he created the world. So there once was a point where in the future God would create the world, but:

Anything that has a "future" is temporally bound.

[Skepdick]

Your guess is as good as mine. I mean, God is eternal, yet he created the world. So there once was a point where in the future God would create the world, but:

Anything that has a "future" is temporally bound.

I can't help you with your temporal confusion, buddy. Time itself is an emergent phenomenon.

So there once was a point where in future time would exist.

If you can't think in terms of open sets/unbounded phenomena; of you don't have some Mathematical intuition about infinities - it's probably pointless talking to you about this.

Not everything needs to be linear...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system

[Will Bouwman]

So there once was a point where there wasn't time and then there was.

How do you know?

[Skepdick]

So there once was a point where there wasn't time and then there was.

How do you know?

Because the question "How old is the universe?" has an answer.

What was the universe up to 50 billion years ago?