Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct. Logic, as we think of it and use it and are bound by it, is God's "invention".
Of course, that whole statement is only a human way to look at it or to try to describe what we see. It is not very good for defining God.
Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise.
But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.
Ok. So, do the physicists find it necessary to consider both outcomes true, in order to continue with their descriptions of physics?
Part of my problem with this is that reading what is written about this, (which, granted, is a condensed version, and not necessarily accurate, but rather, written to garner attention in this noisy environment of public knowledge), what I begin to see is a blurring of the line between them treating both as true for the purpose of continuing their thinking, but remaining cognizant that they only don't know, and them thinking that both are true.
Same sort of thinking shows up in the language of probability, with their use of "chance", "random" and "spontaneous"; they should know better than to believe that anything can happen uncaused to happen, but they certainly do talk like they believe it!
I'm sorry...subjective premise?
Who applies it? There's no objectivity there, but only application. Granted, it does not then depend on the individual, but on the many. Nevertheless the standards are subject to change, (as history shows), so not entirely objective.I'm speaking of morality as I see applied to any group at any time.
I'd suggest it is inter-subjective.
If God is God, he doesn't have opinions, but only truth. If God is Omnipotent, Self-existent and, obviously, First Cause, creating all things that are not he himself, then he OWNS it all. It owes its existence to him, and his definitions are truth. We are responsible to HIM, not to ourselves. If that does not [at least] all describe the God you want to talk about, then we have no common ground for discussion of God, and the question of objectivity of morality has taken a strange turn for me.That's always seemed like an odd way to see it. What exactly is the difference between god defining morality and me, for example? Power?
Not really. I've given up on that. Many have tried to explain it to me, but they all leave me in the dust, my questions not answered to my satisfaction. Drawings, equations and other representations are only that —structures to introduce a way to consider what may be reality, but not more than that to my ignorant mind.I know a physicist on the CF.
Would you prefer asking him? I think I'm correct but he's an expert.
Sounds backwards, to me. But, maybe I'm backwards.That's very similar to how I used to see it.
Now, it becomes hard to describe...hence the goofy analogy of cats in boxes.
It's more like both possibilities are true and the measurements itself (observations) will determine which possibility you see....and which you don't.
Does that make sense? I could be wrong here....it's been awhile.
All I know is that up till the present, cause-and-effect has been the basis for scientific reasoning concerning the structure of the OMNI. It is axiomatic to our logic. Or so I thought, lol.I would suggest that perhaps the whole cause/effect notion is a result of our perceptions of time or maybe limited by them. We're trying to make sense of an eternal "now" (sort of) because everything keeps changing.
This sounds like the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Essentially, there is no outcome until the measurement is made. Until then the wavefunction continues to evolve.Ok. So, do the physicists find it necessary to consider both outcomes true, in order to continue with their descriptions of physics?
It's probably important to know that Schrödinger's Katze gedankenexperiment was designed to point to the folly of taking the "observation" effect too far with evolving quantum systems. Observation is not dependent on a mind, but is just the interaction of the quantum system (the decaying atom) with another system (the radiation detector). If the atom decays and the emitted particle is detected, then the cat is poisoned, right then and there. It does not need to wait until the box is open. (Though as the intelligent observer, you won't *know* if the cat is dead until you open the box and look. This latter effect is no different than recording a sporting event and watching it later without knowing the score before you watch. Your team won or lost before you started watching, but you don't know until you watch it (or look up the score online).Part of my problem with this is that reading what is written about this, (which, granted, is a condensed version, and not necessarily accurate, but rather, written to garner attention in this noisy environment of public knowledge), what I begin to see is a blurring of the line between them treating both as true for the purpose of continuing their thinking, but remaining cognizant that they only don't know, and them thinking that both are true.
Probability is very much part of QM, not just the language. As for spontaneous and uncaued, if you like you can think of the cause of the decay of an excited state being that there is a lower state to decay to. The timing is uncertain and seems to be effectively random with a fixed probability in each equal time interval. If a state has a 1 in 10 chance of decaying in any second, the chance will be 1 in 10 for this second and 5 hours from now and in any second after the excited state is formed. Long overall delays have low probability than shorter ones, but if it is still excited the probability in the next second remains 1 in 10. (For such a state there is a 90% [0.90] likelyhood that it will remain excited at the end of the second. To survive for 2 seconds is a 0.90^2 = 81% probability, for 1 minute is a 0.90^60 = 0.179%.Same sort of thinking shows up in the language of probability, with their use of "chance", "random" and "spontaneous"; they should know better than to believe that anything can happen uncaused to happen, but they certainly do talk like they believe it!
Well, no. That is an anthropomorphism, and would imply that God might change. Morality, as love, existence and reality itself, are from God. HE is the basis for such things. He does not change. He is always what he is, not growing nor improving himself, not learning nor discovering. Morality is, to God, neither subjective nor objective but simply endemic to himself.And, btw, even though I believe in God, I don't believe that morality is objective because God is not an object. Morality is subjective to God.
If morality is not subject to God, then God is subject to morality...which we don't believe is the case.Well, no. That is an anthropomorphism, and would imply that God might change. Morality, as love, existence and reality itself, are from God. HE is the basis for such things. He does not change. He is always what he is, not growing nor improving himself, not learning nor discovering. Morality is, to God, neither subjective nor objective but simply endemic to himself.
The OP, though, is asking, if we leave God, (the source of objective morality), out of the picture —i.e. from a purely humanistic POV— is morality objective. I say NO.
That might well be the case. But we have limited knowledge. We might know the proximate outcomes of our acts. Which may be good. But not the ultimate outcomes. Which may be bad. Our acts are subject to the knowledge that we have.God certainly adjusts the measure by which He judges our compliance with His morality...He judges it according to our knowledge and ability to comply.
Agreed completely. I hope you didn't take me to say differently.If morality is not subject to God, then God is subject to morality...which we don't believe is the case.
Morality IS subject to God, but God does not see it subjectively. He doesn't make up an absolute set of rules arbitrarily, but neither does he reference himself in some consideration of this or that in order to produce an absolute morality.Morality is subject to God because God creates morality. We might presume God does not change His standards of morality. That has nothing to do with whether God, Himself, changes because God can change His creations without Himself being changed. But we don't know that God does not or has not changed morality.
True enough. He looks upon the heart to judge the deeds.God certainly adjusts the measure by which He judges our compliance with His morality...He judges it according to our knowledge and ability to comply.
If the God I posit is God— that is, if he is omnipotent creator —there is no excuse for any wrongdoing. More to the point, though, is the nature of all of us who intentionally separate ourselves from our creator: There is no good in anyone, but what God does in them. We have no goodness in and of ourselves ——IF God is Omnipotent Creator. He is both the source and measure of morality.That might well be the case. But we have limited knowledge. We might know the proximate outcomes of our acts. Which may be good. But not the ultimate outcomes. Which may be bad. Our acts are subject to the knowledge that we have.
Still no excuse. IMHO. But that gets into Christian doctrine, which teaches that nobody is actually innocent.Except our lack of knowledge.
Sure! After all, if morality is not objective, then any premise concerning morality is based on one's own point of view, thus, 'subjective'. We can even make it up as we go!
Who applies it?
Mark Quayle said:
But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.
If God is God, he doesn't have opinions, but only truth.
Sure.Or it could be subjective and not your point of view....someone else's.
Subjectively.Yeah? Only truth?
And how would I access this truth?
Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that morality should be linked to the objective. The closer we adhere to the objective the lower the risk that we will perpetuate injustice. It is my understanding that this is what "In God We Trust" refers to. It doesn't mean we trust in a particular religion or sect, but a shared underlying reality that transcends our subjective experience. Perhaps easier said then done, but a worthy goal.Or it could be subjective and not your point of view....someone else's.
Law is linked to the objective. We lay down very specific rules that we must, as a society, obey. But morality is something that we each determine.Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that morality should be linked to the objective.
Not really. I've given up on that. Many have tried to explain it to me, but they all leave me in the dust, my questions not answered to my satisfaction. Drawings, equations and other representations are only that —structures to introduce a way to consider what may be reality, but not more than that to my ignorant mind.
Sounds backwards, to me. But, maybe I'm backwards.
All I know is that up till the present, cause-and-effect has been the basis for scientific reasoning concerning the structure of the OMNI. It is axiomatic to our logic. Or so I thought, lol.
Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that morality should be linked to the objective.
The closer we adhere to the objective the lower the risk that we will perpetuate injustice.
It is my understanding that this is what "In God We Trust" refers to.
It doesn't mean we trust in a particular religion or sect, but a shared underlying reality that transcends our subjective experience. Perhaps easier said then done, but a worthy goal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?