Objective Moral Values

[fyrOM]

I don't think the jews (People) are to blame nor the "Temple aristocracy," as the pope suggesting is to blame. Why, because it was pre destined according to scripture. If anything Christians should be thankful towards the Jews for playing part in Gods plan. If the crucifixion did not happen, Christians would not be Christians today.

It was written and Jews can not be blamed.

His accusers may have been the "Temple aristocracy" but it was the crowd of Jews that condemned Him and said to Pontius Pilot crucify Him...remember the washing of the hands and "let it be on your heads."

Politics puts a wonderful twist on religion when according to the cathos the pope has the right to make things up as he goes along.

By your reasoning above then should we also be thankful to Judas for playing his part"?

The priciple behind"I Knew you before you were born", remember.

I wonder if God, the Atheists, Agnostics and anyone Iv'e missed out, would agree that the amount of time and energy put into this thread could have been better used in formulating a solution to Macedonia's problems and a plan for the unification and a better future for all Macedonians?

Couldn't agree more...what a waste of time.

[makedonin]

That is not necessarily so - many things exist without our knowledge. There may be millions of planets that exist that we do not know of. Just because we are not aware of something, that does not mean it does not exist. Even if there were no human beings on the earth, the sun would still exist, regardless of whether there was anyone to 'observe' it.

You haven't understand what I said. I said the same what you said here. Those natural phenomenons exist regardless of weather someone testify their existence, that much we agree upon.

But, the question weather something objectively exists and is true will be asked than and only then when observers i.e. subjects come in play.

The very question is subjective, therefore only one subject can't give probable answer. Then the real question would be how subjects can establish knowledge what is objective and independent from their own mind and existence? Knowledge about existence of any given objective phenomenon is established for the inquiring subjects only if the given objective phenomenon is accessible for observation and can be identified (observed), examined and verified by many independent subjects. Than and only than this is a objective phenomenon when the given phenomenon does not appear that it changes it's properties dependent on any additional subjective observation.

Simply said, it does not really matter if there are objective morals if they can't be easily identified, observed, investigated, examined and verified by all subject that are concerned.

The very questioning about objective morals is arising from subjects who have made observation of different moral systems, and haven't yet identified (observed), examined and verified something like objective morals.

[Vangelovski]

Indeed. So it is in fact the following:

As noted in my response to Makedonin - my point has been that objective moral values exist whether or not anyone agrees with them. Everyone in the world may agree that murder is good, but that does not make it good. The total sum of individual opinion does not provide moral value. Moral value is objective (i.e., beyond individual or collective human opinion).

[Vangelovski]

Before anything can be said is objective we have to realize that there must be some one who will declare it as such. Say the sun exist no matter what happens or weather someone testify it as such.
But the question of weather it is objective or not rises when observers (subjects) come in play. The question of objectivity is not separated from the subjects and observers of a phenomenon. When the same observation is to be made by every new subject coming in to the relation, it only confirms the objectivity of given phenomenon.

So Risto is right, if any objective moral values exist as given, than they should be easy identified by all societies, just as many natural phenomenon are i.e. the sun.

That is not necessarily so - many things exist without our knowledge. There may be millions of planets that exist that we do not know of. Just because we are not aware of something, that does not mean it does not exist. Even if there were no human beings on the earth, the sun would still exist, regardless of whether there was anyone to 'observe' it.

[makedonin]

Before anything can be said is objective we have to realize that there must be some one who will declare it as such. Say the sun exist no matter what happens or weather someone testify it as such.
But the question of weather it is objective or not rises when observers (subjects) come in play. The question of objectivity is not separated from the subjects and observers of a phenomenon. When the same observation is to be made by every new subject coming in to the relation, it only confirms the objectivity of given phenomenon.

So Risto is right, if any objective moral values exist as given, than they should be easy identified by all societies, just as many natural phenomenon are i.e. the sun.

[Risto the Great]

Almost all is not objective - that is a subjective statement. Objective moral values exist regardless of whether any humans exist or not.

Generally consider is also a subjective statement. Objective moral values place a value of good or evil regardless of whether someone agrees or not.

Indeed. So it is in fact the following:

They should be easy to identify because all societies would consider them as fact.

[Vangelovski]

I would like to see a definitive list of these objective values before I comment any further. They should be easy to identify because almost all societies would generally consider them as fact.

Almost all is not objective - that is a subjective statement. Objective moral values exist regardless of whether any humans exist or not.

Generally consider is also a subjective statement. Objective moral values place a value of good or evil regardless of whether someone agrees or not.

[Vangelovski]

fyrOM,

Your "defective individual" arguement is baseless because that is only your subjective view. If you claim that objective moral values do not exist, then YOUR subjective value system is just that - YOURS. You have absolutely no basis on which to argue that YOUR subjective values are GOOD (whether they are logical is beside the point) and that the subjective values of someone else are EVIL. But even in relation to logic, logic itself needs to be based on objective principles in order for people to agree on what is 'logical' otherwise it is just as futile as your subjective moral values claim.

[fyrOM]

Just a hint...to the existence of a God or power...Holy water and the Muslim equivalent. I don't know really know other religions and if they have anything similar but this should be enough.

Ever felt pocuden or heard of someone who was and what if anything Holy Water is used for.

As to Objective moral values...I'll leave it to you.

[fyrOM]

I think what is missing in this statement, and in a lot of the statements of those who affirm the negative to this hypothesis, is that they have poor understanding of not only the Christian position, but of human history as well.

1) It is the Christian Position that man was created in the image of God;
2) That man is a rationale person, with a rationale mind, capable of deep thought and reflection;
3) That there are Laws of Nature, which are Laws that God has impregnated in the human creation;
A) Being in the image of God, man is able to understand the Laws of Nature;
6) That throughout human history, there have been similarities on moral positions on murder, stealing, perjury, rape, etc;
7) That one does not need God or the Bible to understand the Laws of Nature, for these Laws are not found in a book, but in the Light of Nature contained in our mental faculties;

10) That Objective Laws, irrespective of tradition and custom, can only come from Scripture, since it represents the very words of God.

Therein lies the dilemma...did God create man in His image and hence man is capable of reasonable thought and reflection or out of this reflection did man reason that there must be more to this world than this life and created God.

All the commandments, 7 deadly sins and a lot of other things can be logically rationaly argued to the same conclusion as in the Bible but for without God...well except for 1. I am your God and you will have no other, only because it states God but still can be argued that IF there is No God and the Bible is a codefied moral values with the need of the fear of God to keep simple people following it then there needs to be an enforcer ie God.

What evidence, outside the Bible, is there that Objective moral values exist At All...and this perpetual cyclical argument God created Objective moral values...Objective moral values prove there is a God.

Prove the existence of Objective moral values and show that they are not logically argued subjective values as demonstrated in previous posts...dismantle the logic and find the flaw...then show the logic to support your position to the affirmative.

[Philosopher]

instead on most point societies around the world have reached similar conclusions without interacting with each other nor knowing your Bible God

I think what is missing in this statement, and in a lot of the statements of those who affirm the negative to this hypothesis, is that they have poor understanding of not only the Christian position, but of human history as well.

1) It is the Christian Position that man was created in the image of God;
2) That man is a rationale person, with a rationale mind, capable of deep thought and reflection;
3) That there are Laws of Nature, which are Laws that God has impregnated in the human creation;
A) Being in the image of God, man is able to understand the Laws of Nature;
4) That because of the Fall of Man, humans imperfectly grasp the Laws of Nature;
5) That throughout human history, there have been varying and sundry moral attitudes toward homosexuality, adultery, pederasty, fornication, lying, and the like;
6) That throughout human history, there have been similarities on moral positions on murder, stealing, perjury, rape, etc;
7) That one does not need God or the Bible to understand the Laws of Nature, for these Laws are not found in a book, but in the Light of Nature contained in our mental faculties;
8) But that these Laws are expressed sometimes the same and sometime different is the result of the Fall of Man and Sin;
9) That the Bible states that to have the "correct" and "perfect" Law of God, and the hope of eternal salvation, which does not depend on Law, one needs Divine Scripture;
10) That Objective Laws, irrespective of tradition and custom, can only come from Scripture, since it represents the very words of God.

[fyrOM]

My point was Not as you assert
can people discover Objective moral vales without God - or with him for that matter

but that logical thinking leads to subjective moral values
that these logically thought out subjective moral values equal the Bible values in key points

hence I put forward that Objective moral values Do Not exist At All
and what you like to call Objective moral values are simply well logically formulated subjective values

these well formulated subjective values were codefide by smarter people for the dumber masses as a religion ie why do this...because God said so...without having to logically prove the point each time to the ignorant who may not even understand the logic or through their greed choose to ignore it and to enforce this code they put the fear of God into people by making them think they will go to Hell if they do not addhear to the codes

hence my assertion is that Objective moral values do not exist at all and cannot pressent an absurd situation that some people would see what we consider 'evil' as good

instead on most point societies around the world have reached simillar conclusions without interreacting with each other nor knowing your Bible God

I also addressed the issue of deffective thinking where stupid but powerfull indeviduals can lead astray a society and this can self correct in time

defective indeviduals may have a different subjective values to you AND THAT in NO WAY does this mean we cannot argue against them - flawed logic VS correct logic
and where as some indeviduals claim something drives them to murder or rape ect then one can argue that like a rabbid dog cannot logically control his action and needs to be put down so to defective indeviduals need to be put down and their but it's my subjective value is NO deffence AT ALL
so your constant reference to absurdity of subjective values leading to evil which cannot be attacked is a flawed argument

I also addressed how some things can exist on the edge of this subjective value system and really there is no true answer such as a skirt hem should be just bellow the knee or just above the knee ect and in those situations Man will do what he has done for millenia before knowing God and for millenia after knowing God - ie my might is right and what I say so goes.

Given all of the above I put it that Objective moral values do NOT exist as explained
and that at know time have you actually defined Objective moral values ie what are they, how did they come into being, what evidence do you have for this other than just the Bible says so

that your arguments use Objective moral values as a given and everything else need to be explained and somehow account for them...well they are Not a given for a large part of the world and do not need to be accounted for because they do not exist but for your codefide religion.

After having shown the logic of a subjective value system and how it can correct for flaws

I put it that the onus is on you to prove your point that Objective moral values exist AT ALL outside your Bible before you can use them in your arguments as if they are a given fact.

[Risto the Great]

Secondly, you have not addressed the fact that if objective moral values do not exist, then we must accept the absurdity that some societies can come to consider (and have) things that we consider as evil, good, for example, murder, and that we cannot argue that as evil because that is their subjective value system and what we would see as good would only be our subjective value system.

I would like to see a definitive list of these objective values before I comment any further. They should be easy to identify because almost all societies would generally consider them as fact.

[Vangelovski]

I belive my previouse posts have addressed the logical realisation and formation of values such as Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not steel ect by communities who for thousands of years had never heard of your Bible God.

I was going to take the 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins and demonstrate their logical formation to show that Man alone is capable of forming these same conclusions without ever having heard of God but did not think it warranted the time given that you have Not defined nor proven the existence of Objective moral values...to you they might be a given but to a large part of the world they are not...so it is useless path to keep arguing against something that doesnt exist but is treated as an absolute given.

Prove your point first.

By the way I am not an athiest...might have been missed by some in my earliest posts.

fyrOM,

The question was never whether someone can discover objective moral values without knowing God. The question was whether they can exist without God. So you have not addressed that at all.

Secondly, you have not addressed the fact that if objective moral values do not exist, then we must accept the absurdity that some societies can come to consider (and have) things that we consider as evil, good, for example, murder, and that we cannot argue that as evil because that is their subjective value system and what we would see as good would only be our subjective value system.

[fyrOM]

You still have not explained how anything can be judged as good or bad without objective moral values and the absurdities that logically flow from an absence of objective moral values.

I belive my previouse posts have addressed the logical realisation and formation of values such as Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not steel ect by communities who for thousands of years had never heard of your Bible God.

I was going to take the 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins and demonstrate their logical formation to show that Man alone is capable of forming these same conclusions without ever having heard of God but did not think it warranted the time given that you have Not defined nor proven the existence of Objective moral values...to you they might be a given but to a large part of the world they are not...so it is useless path to keep arguing against something that doesnt exist but is treated as an absolute given.

Prove your point first.

By the way I am not an athiest...might have been missed by some in my earliest posts.