Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

seer explain why that 2 items and another 2 items make 4 items. The math symbolism aside. Explain why that or any self evident truth needs God to be true. If I was an atheist that would be one of the questions I would ask a theist. We are speaking of self evident truths Not just the math symbolism.

They don't make anything - you may have a group of rocks but there is no mathematical value to them until a mind assigns that value. But I would say that mathematical and logical truths exist and are universal because our Creator is logical and mathematical. It is how He thinks and how He Created - it all goes back to Him.

[lee_merrill]

Lee of course arithmetic table was created. Some one had to create the numbers one or two or three etc... You can have one rock, or two rocks or three rocks but you can not have 1+2=3 without a mind to invent the tokens we use in abstract reasoning.

But "1+2=3" even if no one is thinking of that, even if no one ever thought of that.

How or where do moral principles exist apart from minds?

They are self-existent, they are true at all times, before creation. There is a passage that argues against my view, though:

Source: Prov. 8:22-27

The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,,
before his deeds of old;
I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep...

© Copyright Original Source

I would say that wisdom refers here to wisdom in reference to mankind:

Source: Prov. 8:13

To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.

© Copyright Original Source

Thus this wisdom would be created before man. But the principles are still eternal.

No Lee, if you hold that abstract principles (ethical or otherwise) can exist apart from rational minds it is up to you to show how and where they exist when no minds are present.

"I would say that mathematical and logical truths exist and are universal because our Creator is logical and mathematical."

But why do these truths need God in order to be true? That was 37818's question.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

"I would say that mathematical and logical truths exist and are universal because our Creator is logical and mathematical."

But why do these truths need God in order to be true? That was 37818's question.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, mathematical and logical truths are abstracts used to map or understand the physical universe. Abstracts are the product of rational minds, they do not exist apart from minds. You could have a group of rocks, but it takes a mind to organize the idea of two rocks and two rocks equaling four rocks. The rocks would still exist without a mind, the abstract would not. Look at it this way - the sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. That would violate the law of non-contradiction, but that law is an abstract and it not known apart from rational minds. But it is even worse for ethics. Ethics are not mapping physical qualities in the universe, they are completely abstract. "Murder is wrong" does not track or map any physical property in the universe. It is fully subjective.

[37818]

They don't make anything - you may have a group of rocks but there is no mathematical value to them until a mind assigns that value. But I would say that mathematical and logical truths exist and are universal because our Creator is logical and mathematical. It is how He thinks and how He Created - it all goes back to Him.

That is false. The quantity of rocks or quantity of anything else is that quantity whether there is someone to count them or not. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one hears it? It is the same type of question. Objective reality does not depend on anyone to be objective. That of course on the premise that there is no God.

And besides, God knows the number of all things without any need to count anything. God does not think as we do, God is absolutely omniscient.

Now on the premise that there is no God. Can you logically show that such a premise is an impossibility and therefore absurd? The mere presumption of God does not give any explanation as to the necessity of God for self evident truths. Uncaused existence needs no God. All traditional arguments set out to prove God is in existence. Where existence is not in need of any proof. Uncaused of existence is not in need of any god.

Morality is objective because behavior is objective. Bad behavior is defined by good behavior. Not the other way around.

[seer]

That is false. The quantity of rocks or quantity of anything else is that quantity whether there is someone to count them or not. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one hears it? It is the same type of question. Objective reality does not depend on anyone to be objective. That of course on the premise that there is no God.

No it is not false, the rocks would exist yes, but quantifying them into two rocks and two rocks equaling four rocks does not. That is an abstract and requires a mind. And yes the tree would still make a sound - that is a physical act, not an abstract concept.

Now on the premise that there is no God. Can you logically show that such a premise is an impossibility and therefore absurd? The mere presumption of God does not give any explanation as to the necessity of God for self evident truths. Uncaused existence needs no God. All traditional arguments set out to prove God is in existence. Where existence is not in need of any proof. Uncaused of existence is not in need of any god.

And?

Morality is objective because behavior is objective. Bad behavior is defined by good behavior. Not the other way around.

Who or what defines good and bad behavior? And how can you have ethics without minds? Ethics by nature are interpersonal, persons are necessary.

[37818]

No it is not false, the rocks would exist yes, but quantifying them into two rocks and two rocks equaling four rocks does not. That is an abstract and requires a mind. And yes the tree would still make a sound - that is a physical act, not an abstract concept.

The quantity of things (not counted by any mind) is just the same quantity.

Now on the premise that there is no God. Can you logically show that such a premise is an impossibility and therefore absurd? The mere presumption of God does not give any explanation as to the necessity of God for self evident truths. Uncaused existence needs no God. All traditional arguments set out to prove God is in existence. Where existence is not in need of any proof. Uncaused of existence is not in need of any god.

And?

How does your point of argument (a mind) answer this?

Who or what defines good and bad behavior?

What constitutes being beneficial - constructive as opposed to destructive? Evil is defined by what is good. Not the other way around. Good is the of self evident truths.

And how can you have ethics without minds? Ethics by nature are interpersonal, persons are necessary.

Now ethics is a science. The laws of physics are not caused by science nor is good caused by ethics. Ethics is the study of objective good. Behavior requires minds. And behavior is the objective acts of minds. What is good is defined apart from the mind. It is ethics by which the mind discovers objective good.

[seer]

The quantity of things (not counted by any mind) is just the same quantity.

Except there is actually no quantity assigned to them. If there are no minds to count the rocks how many rocks are there? It is unknown.

How does your point of argument (a mind) answer this?

I don't have to - we live in a universe Created by a rational mind. The source of self-evident truths.

What constitutes being beneficial - constructive as opposed to destructive? Evil is defined by what is good. Not the other way around. Good is the self-evident truths.

How is that any more than your opinion? And constructive or to destructive to what? And why is it a self-evident truth that it is a objective moral good for our species to survive.

Now ethics is a science. The laws of physics are not caused by science nor is good caused by ethics. Ethics is the study of objective good. Behavior requires minds. And behavior is the objective acts of minds. What is good is defined apart from the mind. It is ethics by which the mind discovers objective good.

Then tell me where do these objective truths exist apart from minds?

[lee_merrill]

You could have a group of rocks, but it takes a mind to organize the idea of two rocks and two rocks equaling four rocks. The rocks would still exist without a mind, the abstract would not.

The abstract would not be appreciated, but the abstract (Plato's forms!) would still exist.

Ethics are not mapping physical qualities in the universe, they are completely abstract. "Murder is wrong" does not track or map any physical property in the universe. It is fully subjective.

In my view, moral truths, mathematical truths are there to be discovered. A proposition which is not nonsense is either true or false. "Murder is wrong" is not nonsense, even if there is no one to consider this. It is not false, it must therefore be true.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

The abstract would not be appreciated, but the abstract (Plato's forms!) would still exist.

And I would say that Plato's Forms don't exist either - how could they? Lee, let me ask you, if objective morality is a fact is God obligated to follow those ethical laws?

In my view, moral truths, mathematical truths are there to be discovered. A proposition which is not nonsense is either true or false. "Murder is wrong" is not nonsense, even if there is no one to consider this. It is not false, it must therefore be true.

Blessings,
Lee

But math truths, the laws of physics, even logical laws are grounded in physical reality. "Murder is wrong" is no more than opinion. An opinion that all men do not hold. Then there is another problem. If I jump off a cliff the law of gravity will make sure that I experience the consequences. If a Stalin murders what consequences do objective moral laws impose on him? There would be no rational reason to follow them even if they did exist.

[lee_merrill]

And I would say that Plato's Forms don't exist either - how could they?

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 2 Cor. 4:18

Now I'm not saying that Plato's forms were in mind here, but we are to fix our eyes on what is unseen.

Lee, let me ask you, if objective morality is a fact is God obligated to follow those ethical laws?

Yes!

Source: "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" by C.S. Lewis

“Aslan!” said Lucy almost a little reproachfully. “Don’t make fun of me. As if anything I could do would make you visible!”

“It did,” said Aslan. “Do you think I wouldn’t obey my own rules?” (pp. 158–59)

© Copyright Original Source

God is not subservient to the rules, he embodies love and grace, but he does follow his own rules, which express the rules of moral law, and which express his nature.

But math truths, the laws of physics, even logical laws are grounded in physical reality. "Murder is wrong" is no more than opinion. An opinion that all men do not hold.

No, it's a principle, which applies whether men subscribe to it or not.

Then there is another problem. If I jump off a cliff the law of gravity will make sure that I experience the consequences. If a Stalin murders what consequences do objective moral laws impose on him? There would be no rational reason to follow them even if they did exist.

The law is a standard, it does not punish in and of itself. The golden rule is like a ruler...

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

Yes!

“It did,” said Aslan. “Do you think I wouldn’t obey my own rules?” (pp. 158–59)[/cite]
God is not subservient to the rules, he embodies love and grace, but he does follow his own rules, which express the rules of moral law, and which express his nature.

Lee, I agree that God follows His own law or more correctly His own nature. What is being argued though is that there is a moral standard that exists independently of God (independently of minds, including God's mind).

No, it's a principle, which applies whether men subscribe to it or not.

I agree that moral principles exist in the mind of God regardless of whether men know them or not. But I do not agree that moral principles have existence in themselves, or exist apart from minds.

The law is a standard, it does not punish in and of itself. The golden rule is like a ruler...

Blessings,
Lee

With no enforcement for violating them.

[lee_merrill]

I agree that moral principles exist in the mind of God regardless of whether men know them or not. But I do not agree that moral principles have existence in themselves, or exist apart from minds.

So does a person thinking about a moral principle give being to that principle? Just not sure how this would actually work.

With no enforcement for violating them.

Correct, "through the law we become conscious of sin" (Rom. 3:20). Though there are consequences for sin, the law is not the executioner...

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

So does a person thinking about a moral principle give being to that principle? Just not sure how this would actually work.

No, if it is a correct moral principle you are "Thinking God's thoughts after Him." We are reflecting on the "law of God written on our hearts."

[37818]

Except there is actually no quantity assigned to them. If there are no minds to count the rocks how many rocks are there? It is unknown.

Those items would be no different there not being any minds to know it.

I don't have to - we live in a universe Created by a rational mind. The source of self-evident truths.

On the premise that there is not any God your argument as just given is false.

How is that any more than your opinion?

My opinion does not make anything true.

And constructive or to destructive to what?

It only matters to those having a mind.

And why is it a self-evident truth that it is a objective moral good for our species to survive.

Our species survive on its account.

Then tell me where do these objective truths exist apart from minds?

On the premise that there is no God. They do exist. Not just because we have minds to realize them.

[lee_merrill]

No, if it is a correct moral principle you are "Thinking God's thoughts after Him." We are reflecting on the "law of God written on our hearts."

Yes, but your view does seem like it is required to think about a principle in order for it to be. That such principles exist in the mind.

Blessings,
Lee