You are free to perceive it as you wish. I was just explaining why I didn´t answer the question, and why not answering the question doesn´t equal you disallowing to ask it.
I know I'm allowed to ask it... me saying 'I'm not allowed to ask' was a way of me phrasing how I thought your reply (or lack of it) was strange. Like I supposed to answer questions, but you wont answer any.
It doesn't matter now.
For me, the point is pretty much similar to what the point of music, of story telling, of theatre, of metaphores, of creativity is: Inspiring each other, offer and share that which we perceive as beautiful ideas and visions.
Look, there wouldn´t be much point in watching a movie and asking yourself all the time: "But is this true?".
I wouldn't personally call that metaphysics then. It needs to be made more obvious that it's about fiction. Perhaps calling it myth... metaphysical myths; to make t clear that you are just telling stories for enjoyment or value conveyance.
[But since you are so hell-bound to carry it here, I will humour you.
I don´t believe that morality is a matter of truth. I´m not a moral realist.
But if assuming for a moment that morality were a matter of truth:
Even if it turned out tomorrow that it´s true that killing, raping, injuring, genocide and torture are the means we are morally obliged to utilize at every given opportunity, it wouldn´t change my opinion and it wouldn´t change my behaviour. So much for the significance of "moral truths" (if such existed).]
Fair enough. I suppose I agree, but to me saying rape (in general) is moral, would be similar to saying 2+2=3. If morality were different from what it is, we might be talking about a different concept anyway.
Cool. So we needn´t discuss it in the fundamentalist way I was afraid you meant to discuss it. We can discuss what the exceptions are.
I get that nice ideas might be more important than truth if you live in absolute poverty, or have a terrible life. You might need it to get you through.
I´m not sure I get how this is a comparison in size.
The ideal of "truth" as a "bigger principle" seems to be some sort of metaphysical idea itself. As such, I am tempted to argue that you hold it because it suits your needs best.
It isn't about physical size, its just a way of phrasing things. I mean that truth exists beyond my life, unlike my desires. I want to be part of something beyond my life.
But, anyway, by the same token, "beauty", "inspiration", "fulfilment of needs" would be "bigger principles", as well. Thus, I don´t agree with the hidden assertion that your position is a position of values and principles, and mine is not.
The question is not "Values or not?", but "Which values?".
I'd say my values are higher because they are relevant whether I am alive or not. I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm just explaining my thoughts, and I may be wrong.
Yes, I think it is a belief. I do not think it can be a truth claim.
If I say 'This pen I'm holding exists', is that a belief? Is it a truth claim?
I'm say that psychological, that phrase and 'God exists' tend to be the same.
I understood that. I just don´t agree.
If I knew that God existed or didn´t exist I wouldn´t have to hold a respective belief.
"Beliefs" are held in the realm of possibilities, in the absence of knowledge.
Well obviously we use the word 'belief differently. I think beliefs are things we consider true. Ie: I believe that I'm typing on a laptop.
What word do you use for truth claims?
"I believe that God exists" isn´t.
And, personally, I take every "God exists" for "I believe God exists", in the same way as I take "blue is better than red" as "I believe blue is better than red."
You don't think that "I believe God exists" means "I think it's true that God exists"?
I think most people who speak English would disagree with you. That's how they use English. You might disagree with their use of English, but psychologically they mean the same thing in the minds of the speakers.
I think we are talking past each other because we aren't using the same definitions.
With my friends, I am known for having the habit of occasionally shredding a song into pieces with intellectual arguments, with the result "This song is a worthless piece of crap.". Everyone involved know that this is just another way of saying "I don´t like this song", and that the intellectual part is just a post-hoc rationalization.
Ok, but many people actually think it's true that a God exists.
Well, you don´t know that they are not real, do you?
So this doesn´t seem to be the appropriate way of going about this. It´s mere question begging.
But they could be false, so I can just withhold judgement.
And, while I am at humouring you in responding to off topic questions
, I will answer to this, as well:
In my opinion the question "Does a perfectly moral God exist?" merely pretends to be an epistemic question, while actually it is an unfortunate combination of an epistemic and a moral question.
The epistemic question would be: "Does a God exist?". Moral judgements about this God are an entirely different matter.
It would be like asking "Does a beautiful Paradoxum exist?". In the interest of a proper approach, I would much prefer to keep the questions "Does Paradoxum exist?", and - upon having answered this question yes - "Is she beautiful?" separate.
Someone doesn't have to exist to think she's beautiful. You could have a Photoshop created picture. If you are asked if she's beautiful, whether or not she's real, you could answer that.
Whether or not God is real, you can answer whether God is possibly perfectly moral, based on the state of the world. You don't need to answer the epistemic question first.
