Secular Morality?

[Cornell]

Your purpose, your plan, not your childs purpose.

You don't see the problem in blindly following a plan?

Exactly as I am the FOUNDATION of the purpose and not my child, so the purpose isn't something that just pops into existence and ends up being contingent upon my child's intentions or whether or not my child knows what her purpose is. The purpose is there whether or not she knows it. Therefore a purpose exists and it exists as something that isn't contingent upon her intention, it is contingent upon 'my' intention.



I still don't see a problem.

[Tassman]

an intention that plays a role in my life (whether I like it or not), and yet I am not the source of it entails that an objective purpose exists. This aligns with a teleology because a final cause is present.

Comparing human 'intentions' to a God's 'intentions' is a false analogy. This is because of the difference between 'necessity' and 'contingency'.

My intentions don't create physical reality for contingent beings, so what's up with the attempt of trying to make humans analogous to a necessary being?

[Cornell]

I am not using an argument from contingency, and I would never in a million years state that "everything has a cause"

So we call that a strawman, would you like to try again?

[Tassman]

I am not using an argument from contingency, and I would never in a million years state that "everything has a cause"

So we call that a strawman, would you like to try again?

not what you're arguing than please elucidate just what you are arguing, because you're not being clear.

[Cornell]

not what you're arguing than please elucidate just what you are arguing, because you're not being clear.

I am saying that humans are contingent beings and God is not.

I am not talking about causal dependence, I am talking about 'existential' dependence.

You obviously don't know all there is to know about the different arguments for God, so I would suggest that you be a bit more cautious before you make typical atheist knee jerk projections.

[Tassman]

I am saying that humans are contingent beings and God is not.

I am not talking about causal dependence, I am talking about 'existential' dependence.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...m-contingency/

You obviously don't know all there is to know about the different arguments for God, so I would suggest that you be a bit more cautious before you make typical atheist knee jerk projections

Thomas Aquinas and the five arguments for the existence of God are either Special Pleading fallacies or Arguments-from-Ignorance or both, so I would suggest that you be a bit more cautious before you make typical Theist knee jerk projections.

[Cornell]

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...m-contingency/



Thomas Aquinas and the five arguments for the existence of God are either Special Pleading fallacies or Arguments-from-Ignorance or both, so I would suggest that you be a bit more cautious before you make typical Theist knee jerk projections.

http://phiorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Lowe-2.pdf

So you don't know what you are talking about, and you have to lose this 'I know everything' mentality and take a step back, take a breath, and come to terms with the fact that you are debating someone who spent much more time on this topic than you have.

Aquinas also has nothing to do with ontological arguments, because HE ARGUED AGAINST THEM. Aquinas argued primarily against Anselm, and if you took the time to do a bit of research then you'd realize this.

So all you are doing is armchair history and this isn't helping you very well.

I expect a concession, but I won't hold my breath.

[Jichard]

an intention that plays a role in my life (whether I like it or not), and yet I am not the source of it entails that an objective purpose exists. This aligns with a teleology because a final cause is present.

No, that wold not suffice for an "objective purpose". If the statement "there is a purpose" is true in virtue of God's intention, then the intention is subjective, since the statement in true in virtue of one of God's mental states. Appeal to God's mental states does not suffice for make one's position an objectivist one. Hence divine command theory being a subjectivist position.

Comparing human 'intentions' to a God's 'intentions' is a false analogy. This is because of the difference between 'necessity' and 'contingency'.

Irrelevant, since the mental states of a contingent being are just as mind-dependent as the intentions of a necessary being, and thus just as subjective.

My intentions don't create physical reality for contingent beings, so what's up with the attempt of trying to make humans analogous to a necessary being?

Even if intention X causes physical reality to exist, intention X is still subjective since intention X is a mind-dependent mental state. This is in contrast to mind-independent objective things, such as rocks.

[Cornell]

No, that wold not suffice for an "objective purpose". If the statement "there is a purpose" is true in virtue of God's intention, then the intention is subjective, since the statement in true in virtue of one of God's mental states. Appeal to God's mental states does not suffice for make one's position an objectivist one. Hence divine command theory being a subjectivist position.



Irrelevant, since the mental states of a contingent being are just as mind-dependent as the intentions of a necessary being, and thus just as subjective.



Even if intention X causes physical reality to exist, intention X is still subjective since intention X is a mind-dependent mental state. This is in contrast to mind-independent objective things, such as rocks.

Whoa sloooow down

How in the world are you defining 'subjective'?


I define it as mind-dependent with respect to humans

[Jichard]

Whoa sloooow down

How in the world are you defining 'subjective'?

A subjective claim is true or false in virtue of a (real or imagined) mind's (or minds') views on the matter. In colloquial terms: mind-dependence.

I define it as mind-dependent with respect to humans

Then you'd be engaged in special pleading then, since "subjective" is not limited to one particular species known as "humans". It instead extends to any mind, regardless of whether that mind is human, alien, reptilian, divine, etc. This is so well-known that it even shows up on Wikipedia, where dependence on God's mind counts as subjective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

[Cornell]

Necessity means could no fail to be another way

There is no way that a necessary being can have any subjectiveness

Objective is defined as:

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

The nature of something necessary could not have any other type of nature other than the nature that it has, so its nature is what it is

So there is absolutely no way a necessary being has any subjectivity when it comes to purpose, its nature entails objectivity and cannot be any other way.

That link you posted ultimately fails

[Cornell]

Atheists love the plea for special pleading only because they don't know what God is, and assume that God is something that came from a preexisting reality.

There is no special pleading, just a bad conception of God on the part of the atheist

Objective doesn't just mean minds independent, something mind independent needs to have some sort of nature that could not fail to be any other way.

Objective works hand and hand with necessity.

[Jichard]

Necessity means could no fail to be another way

No, not on your definition of necessity. You're talking about existential necessity:

"I am saying that humans are contingent beings and God is not.

I am not talking about causal dependence, I am talking about 'existential' dependence."

And it's logically possible (and conceptually possible, and ....) for a existentially necessary being to be another way.

There is no way that a necessary being can have any subjectiveness

Of course it can. Anything that has mental states will have subjective mental states, since every mental state is subjective.

Objective is defined as:

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

And... so what? God has interpretations, beliefs, feelings, imaginings, and so on. Those are God's mental states. So on your definition, those are not objective.

Anyway, as I explained to you in previous post, God's mental states are subjective on the definition of "subjective" used in philosophy, especially the one used in meta-ethics.

The nature of something necessary could not have any other type of nature other than the nature that it has, so its nature is what it is

Trivial, since by definition, any X that has a nature will be such that X could not have any other type of nature other than the nature that it has, so that its nature is what it is. And that's because X's nature is specified by listing the conditions C jointly necessary and sufficient. So anything that does not meet C simply would not be X. For example, the nature of being a bachelor can be specified as being an unmarried male. Thus being a bachelor could not have other type of nature than the nature it has, since if it had a another nature, then it wouldn't be being a bachelor. But does not that mean that the existence of bachelors in necessary? Nope.

Nor does it show that being bachelor is objective. After all, subjective things can have natures, such that those subjective things could not have any other type of nature other than the nature that it has. For example, the nature of being a belief (if there is such a nature) is such that being a belief could not have other type of nature than the nature it has, since if it had a another nature, then it wouldn't be being a belief. But being a belief is still subjective.

So there is absolutely no way a necessary being has any subjectivity when it comes to purpose, its nature entails objectivity and cannot be any other way.

Nope; necessity does not entail being objective. God's intentions are one of God's mental states, and thus apart of God's individual view and interpretation. Thus they are not objective even on the definition you gave above, in contrast to things like rocks, which are not just apart of some minds views or interpretations. Instead, rocks are mind-independent things.

That link you posted ultimately fails

You haven't shown how it fails. Instead, it's employing the standard definition of "subjective", on which God's mental states are subjective, just like the mental states of every other mind are subjective. This is fairly standard and in line with other sources. For example:

it may besomething has surely gone wrong if even facts in Bishop Berkeley's globally idealistic world count as objective

[Jichard]

Atheists love the plea for special pleading only because they don't know what God is, and assume that God is something that came from a preexisting reality.

There is no special pleading, just a bad conception of God on the part of the atheist

One does not need to believe thhat X exists, in order to know what X exists. For example, I know what married bachelors are, even though I don't believe that they exist. Similarly, atheists can know what God is, even if they don't believe that God exists.

Objective doesn't just mean minds independent, something mind independent needs to have some sort of nature that could not fail to be any other way.

Not really, as I explained elsewhere: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...010#post237010

Objective works hand and hand with necessity.

Again, not really.

First, there can be objectively true claims that are not necessarily true. For example: monkeys exist.

Second, there can be subjectively true claims that are not necessarily true. For example, even if it was necessarily true that God commands that X, that statement would still subjectively true, not objectively true. Hence divine command theory being a form of moral subjectivism.

it may besomething has surely gone wrong if even facts in Bishop Berkeley's globally idealistic world count as objective

[JimL]

Necessity means could no fail to be another way

There is no way that a necessary being can have any subjectiveness

Objective is defined as:

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

The nature of something necessary could not have any other type of nature other than the nature that it has, so its nature is what it is

So there is absolutely no way a necessary being has any subjectivity when it comes to purpose, its nature entails objectivity and cannot be any other way.

That link you posted ultimately fails

So, by his own nature then, god is a determined and so mindless thing, incapable of subjective thought or action? So God, having no subjectivness, didn't subjectively choose to create, didn't subjectively choose a plan or purpose for that which was created through him. So, in what sense is god a being, or a mind? God according to this definition sounds more like the naturalists definition of existence. "Existence is a brute fact, the evolution of which is determined by it own nature."