Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

...what do you think time is?

Well, it has different definitions. What sort are you looking for?

You could say it's the interval in traversing between two points. That's a technical and geometric definition. You could say it's a measure of the rate of entropy. That would be a scientific one. You could say it's a metric of how close we are to death. That's a human-centered definition of time...

Narrow down for me what you want.

The one you are referring to here:

God isn't within time...He transcends it.

[Harbal]

And yet, that just creates a regression problem. If there's something prior to God, something capable of predetermining things that is NOT God, then by definition, what you're calling "God" is not God at all, but some secondary being; and what's really "God" is the prior, predetermining agency, whatever you name that to be. Because that entity is the real "Supreme Being."

Okay, so God didn't create a predetermined universe, and you say nothing else could have done it, so we are left with what I suspected all along. God doesn't know what the future will be,...

That doesn't follow. "Know" and "make happen" or "predetermine" are different verbs.

And you could prove to yourself whether or not that was true, if you'd just try to form the syllogism for your argument. It can't be done.

[phyllo]

Okay, so God didn't create a predetermined universe, and you say nothing else could have done it, so we are left with what I suspected all along. God doesn't know what the future will be, or what decisions I or anyone else will make; there is no way he possibly could know, especially as he doesn't even exist.

Is the past predetermined because you know what happened?

That seems to be where your reasoning is going.

That 'knowing' makes it 'predetermined'.

[Lorikeet]

Every culture or group will have its own objectives but they are sub-objective to the generic objective of the human species.
For example there is the main objective of the digestive and nutrition system which is generic to ALL humans.
However different culture or group would have its sub-objectives in how to produce, prepare and consume the food that serve the main objectives of the digestive and nutrition system, which is a sub-objective of the greater objective of survival.

It is the same with the moral function and system within ALL humans.
The problem is the generic moral system within ALL human is very subtle and not so noticeable, thus leaving most to focus on its sub-objectives.

The world is what determines which objectives and which judgments and choices succeed.
The consequences of an act, based on subjective objectives and evaluations, is what reveals the degree of accuracy.

There is no absolute meaning to a word.

Yes, a word with no reference in a shared reality represents an idea with no real meaning.
World limits how words can be defined.

At present the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' are too loose and used interchangeably.
As I understand and will use, 'ethics' is the main term that covers whatever is deemed good conduct for the well-being and flourishing for the individuals and humanity.
Morality deal with the principles [theory], thus is the "pure" aspect.
Ethics is used again to denote the 'applied' [practices] aspect.
If we do not define and agree upon the terms, the discussion will go all over the place.

My use of morals/ethics is to differentiate what evolved and what was fabricated, relative to what evolved.

Otherwise, the modern/postmodern charlatans are inspired to reject morality as another "social construct"....you know like race and now 'gender.'

We can use these concepts to correlate:
Rae/Ethnicity....Sex/Gender....Morality/Ethics.
Genetic/Memetic.

A group with no shared morals/ethics will not survive for long.
They discipline individuals to collective ideals and a group's welfare.

[Harbal]

Okay, so God didn't create a predetermined universe, and you say nothing else could have done it, so we are left with what I suspected all along. God doesn't know what the future will be, or what decisions I or anyone else will make; there is no way he possibly could know, especially as he doesn't even exist.

Is the past predetermined because you know what happened?

I never dwell on the past, so I don't know.

That seems to be where your reasoning is going.

That 'knowing' makes it 'predetermined'.

No, it is the other way round. It would have to be predetermined in order to be known.

[phyllo]

No, it is the other way round. It would have to be predetermined in order to be known.

Since you know it, then it must have been predetermined.

So you never had free-will.

[Harbal]

No, it is the other way round. It would have to be predetermined in order to be known.

Since you know it, then it must have been predetermined.

So you never had free-will.

That's the implication.

[phyllo]

No, it is the other way round. It would have to be predetermined in order to be known.

Since you know it, then it must have been predetermined.

So you never had free-will.

That's the implication.

Okay, so you claim that the past is predetermined.

[Harbal]

Since you know it, then it must have been predetermined.

So you never had free-will.

That's the implication.

Okay, so you claim that the past is predetermined.

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

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?

[Immanuel Can]

...what do you think time is?

Well, it has different definitions. What sort are you looking for?

You could say it's the interval in traversing between two points. That's a technical and geometric definition. You could say it's a measure of the rate of entropy. That would be a scientific one. You could say it's a metric of how close we are to death. That's a human-centered definition of time...

Narrow down for me what you want.

The one you are referring to here:

God isn't within time...He transcends it.

Oh. Something very general, in that case.

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

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, so God didn't create a predetermined universe, and you say nothing else could have done it, so we are left with what I suspected all along. God doesn't know what the future will be,...

That doesn't follow. "Know" and "make happen" or "predetermine" are different verbs.

And you could prove to yourself whether or not that was true, if you'd just try to form the syllogism for your argument. It can't be done.

Give it a try. You'll see.

[Harbal]

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.

[Harbal]

That doesn't follow. "Know" and "make happen" or "predetermine" are different verbs.

And you could prove to yourself whether or not that was true, if you'd just try to form the syllogism for your argument. It can't be done.

Give it a try. You'll see.

No, I'm happy to be judged on what I've already said on the matter. If you are so fond of syllogisms, why don't you try to come up with one to prove that God knows everything.

[Immanuel Can]

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.