Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

As time is the interval between two points, and points are features of the material world, when there is no material substance in existence then there is no such thing as time.

It's not certain that any material substance exists at all, as any idealist will tell you. All we can say for certain is that there sequential phenomena. If there is an eternity inhabited by your god, there is at least one phenomenon that you believe will come to pass, when your soul, which I take it you believe is not there yet, will make an appearance.

Obviously, by definition, God transcends materiality, as the creator of anything transcends the creation.

We might be about to find out whether that is true.

[Harbal]

Give it a try. You'll see.

No, I'm happy to be judged on what I've already said on the matter.

"Happy" or not, what should be quite clear to you is that you're not being logical. But okay; if being "happy" is the goal, I'll take your word for it that you've arrived.

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my logic, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

[phyllo]

No, I don't claim that. I don't actually know what you mean by it.

I'm just trying to figure out how you think that knowing and predetermination work together.

I don't really have that many thoughts about it. It was only a case of pointing to the logical implications of IC's claim that God knows everything, including the contents of the future.

If we use the fact that we know about the past, then it would seem to logically follow that the past was predetermined.

What's another possible conclusion?

My knowledge about the nature of time is insufficient for me to make any useful comment about that.

Okay, I will let you do whatever it is that you are doing here, in peace.

[Harbal]

I'm just trying to figure out how you think that knowing and predetermination work together.

I don't really have that many thoughts about it. It was only a case of pointing to the logical implications of IC's claim that God knows everything, including the contents of the future.

If we use the fact that we know about the past, then it would seem to logically follow that the past was predetermined.

What's another possible conclusion?

My knowledge about the nature of time is insufficient for me to make any useful comment about that.

Okay, I will let you do whatever it is that you are doing here, in peace.

What I'm doing here is trying to stop IC from getting away with too much of his jiggery pockery and nonsense.

[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. So he's just repeating a standard line of thinking.

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

[Harbal]

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. So he's just repeating a standard line of thinking.

And if this were a religion forum I wouldn't be challenging him. Actually, I wouldn't even be here.

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

And I hope as many as possible do.

[Immanuel Can]

As time is the interval between two points, and points are features of the material world, when there is no material substance in existence then there is no such thing as time.

It's not certain that any material substance exists at all, as any idealist will tell you.

You don't take that seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be typing to me, because you'd think I was a mere figment of your imagining.

Obviously, by definition, God transcends materiality, as the creator of anything transcends the creation.

We might be about to find out whether that is true.

An interesting comment. How?

[Immanuel Can]

No, I'm happy to be judged on what I've already said on the matter.

"Happy" or not, what should be quite clear to you is that you're not being logical. But okay; if being "happy" is the goal, I'll take your word for it that you've arrived.

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my logic, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

If you think there's such a thing as "my logic" or "your logic," as opposed to just "logic," then you don't know what real logic is. The idea is as absurd as saying, "my mathematics," or "my natural laws," or "my truth."

[phyllo]

And if this were a religion forum I wouldn't be challenging him. Actually, I wouldn't even be here.

It actually is a "religion forum".

I've never seen a philosophy forum as obsessed with God and religion as this place. It seems to make its way into practically every thread.
This thread is "Is morality objective or subjective?" but the discussion, now, is about God's foreknowledge.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages about Christianity.

[Harbal]

"Happy" or not, what should be quite clear to you is that you're not being logical. But okay; if being "happy" is the goal, I'll take your word for it that you've arrived.

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my logic, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

If you think there's such a thing as "my logic" or "your logic," as opposed to just "logic," then you don't know what real logic is. The idea is as absurd as saying, "my mathematics," or "my natural laws," or "my truth."

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of the logic that I employed, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

Will that do?

[promethean75]

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

Indeed, and imma show u the big problem with it.

Say there are a number of possible futures u can have, and that what u choose to do (or not) leads to one of these numbered possible outcomes that god is aware of.

This would be okay and would work if it weren't for the problem of the impossibility of god being wrong about what he knows.

There are two items of knowledge god would have here: one item is the awarness of all the possible outcomes of your life and the other is the final result u end up becoming.

Here, if u had the chance not to end up being that final result (and second item of knowledge for god), god would not have that result in mind as the final one and would instead know another result. That is, if it were truly possible for u to have not become a Mormon and eventually have a standoff with the sheriff and get shot, god wouldn't have had this conclusion in mind... wouldn't have this particular ending in mind. There would still be an indeterminate possible future in mind if u didn't end up getting shot by the sheriff.

But he doesn't becuz you're dead. There are no more choices to be made to send your life in one direction or another.

What's so great about this point? Bro the point is that god can't be wrong or mistaken about what he knows to be the final result of your life. See what i mean?

If u truly had freewill, god wouldn't be like 'yeah he's gonna become a drug trafficker and be drowned by rivals'. Instead he'd see a numbered amount of possible outcomes before him with the final moment, the final outcome (x), open ended and indeterminate. That's to say, one year before u become that trafficker, god shouldn't be seeing and knowing x as 'drowned drug trafficker result' becuz there was still enough time (and choices) to change that outcome. U coulda been a chef at a fancy restaurant instead. But he does still see and know that outcome. In fact he knew it the moment after he turned on the laws of physics.

And becuz the whole sequence is causal going all the way back to the laws of the physics that he designed, he not only knows the outcome in advance, but allows, wants, it to happen precisely like it does.

See all the crazy shit that happens when u anthropomorphize god and tryda imagine what he'd be doin if he were like a super intelligent creator type agent like a human is, only waaaay more awesomer?

[Harbal]

And if this were a religion forum I wouldn't be challenging him. Actually, I wouldn't even be here.

It actually is a "religion forum".

I've never seen a philosophy forum as obsessed with God and religion as this place. It seems to make its way into practically every thread.
This thread is "Is morality objective or subjective?" but the discussion, now, is about God's foreknowledge.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages about Christianity.

Yes, I know what you mean.

[phyllo]

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

Indeed, and imma show u the big problem with it.

Say there are a number of possible futures u can have, and that what u choose to do (or not) leads to one of these numbered possible outcomes that god is aware of.

This would be okay and would work if it weren't for the problem of the impossibility of god being wrong about what he knows.

There are two items of knowledge god would have here: one item is the awarness of all the possible outcomes of your life and the other is the final result u end up becoming.

Here, if u had the chance not to end up being that final result (and second item of knowledge for god), god would not have that result in mind as the final one and would instead know another result. That is, if it were truly possible for u to have not become a Mormon and eventually have a standoff with the sheriff and get shot, god wouldn't have had this conclusion in mind... wouldn't have this particular ending in mind. There would still be an indeterminate possible future in mind if u didn't end up getting shot by the sheriff.

But he doesn't becuz you're dead. There are no more choices to be made to send your life in one direction or another.

What's so great about this point? Bro the point is that god can't be wrong or mistaken about what he knows to be the final result of your life. See what i mean?

If u truly had freewill, god wouldn't be like 'yeah he's gonna become a drug trafficker and be drowned by rivals'. Instead he'd see a numbered amount of possible outcomes before him with the final moment, the final outcome (x), open ended and indeterminate. That's to say, one year before u become that trafficker, god shouldn't be seeing and knowing x as 'drowned drug trafficker result' becuz there was still enough time (and choices) to change that outcome. U coulda been a chef at a fancy restaurant instead. But he does still see and know that outcome. In fact he knew it the moment after he turned on the laws of physics.

And becuz the whole sequence is causal going all the way back to the laws of the physics that he designed, he not only knows the outcome in advance, but allows, wants, it to happen precisely like it does.

See all the crazy shit that happens when u anthropomorphize god and tryda imagine what he'd be doin if he were like a super intelligent creator type agent like a human is, only waaaay more awesomer?

Except that's not how it supposedly works.

God isn't calculating what you will do.

God is "beyond time", therefore THEY see the past, present and future.

Your actions appear to God as if they are already in the past.

[promethean75]

Yeah but u know the outcome so shortly after u create everything that u might as well say that's what u wanted to happen. Seriously. BAM! The whole of creation is there before u. U see its entire history in the fraction of a godly second. U know what's gonna happen so fast that it couldn't have not happened.

And plus how could God be like 'imma invent things like thermodynamics, inertia and excentrifugal forz, but I'm not quite sure what they'll do'?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my logic, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

If you think there's such a thing as "my logic" or "your logic," as opposed to just "logic," then you don't know what real logic is. The idea is as absurd as saying, "my mathematics," or "my natural laws," or "my truth."

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of the logic that I employed, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

Will that do?

The logic you're using can't generate a valid basic syllogism. But my approval, and even the fit with logic, is not requisite to your happiness. You can be happy without both, I'm reasonably certain.

So what do you want it to "do" for?