Blind scepticism in extremity is pointless. However as a methodology for coming to more infallible knowledge, reasonable scepticism demanding for the reasons, evidences and grounds from the claims made by science, math and religion is critically important and essenttial in philosophical debates and analysis.

How do you know that He became God after the resurrection? — MoK

Is it not what the Bible says? That is one of the miracles what gives the ground for Christianity as a religion.

How could morality be objective when there is no fact/right premise that we can use to conclude whether an act is right or wrong? — MoK

It is the moral code still the base of the most moral right or wrong. You need to read the 10 commandments, and reflect on the many moral rights and wrong now. They are all related, and originated from the code.

I have not heard of Moral Facts before, hence I am not sure what it is, and why its non existence is the reason for moral subjectivity. Maybe it doesn't exist, because it has never existed in the first place?

And as Kant said, we know what moral good and bad are by simply reflecting on the human actions by our practical reasoning which is universal and objective.

Don't you see any contradiction in your conclusion? — MoK

It is not a conclusion. It is an inference.
It is perfectly reasonable inference, if you read any Hegel and knew about Dialectical Logic.

From daily life, it can be also reasoned. Things don't stay as they are. All things change with time and events in the world.

Do you want me to give you an example of moral fact? How can I give you one when there is none? — MoK

The point is not whether it exists or not. The point is it is nothing to do with Moral good and bad.
Read some Kant. He says we all know what moral good and bad is from our practical reasoning which is universally objective. You don't need moral facts which seems a dubious word.

So He was not God when He was human? — MoK

Now you are saying that He resurrected and He was God. — MoK

That is my inference.

Moral facts are required if morality is objective. — MoK

You haven't answered what moral facts are. You just said moral facts are required. If you don't know what moral facts are, how can you say it is required?

What do you mean by making into God? — MoK

Many folks believe he is God. He doesn't seem to have had been God when he was alive. He was just an ordinary bloke. But when he died on the cross, and resurrected, he became God.
Ordinary folks don't resurrect after death. Only God can resurrect.

Cool. So we are on the same page. — MoK

But was he not made into God when he resurrected after death?

What do you mean by moral codes? — MoK

For example in the Bible, there are 10 commandments.
In other religions, I am sure they have their own moral codes.

I already defined moral facts in OP. By moral facts, I mean a set of facts that we can derive whether an act is right or wrong. — MoK

The ancient folks derived the moral good and bad from the religious moral codes such as 10 commandments. But Kant said, that we have the practical reason we derive the moral good and bad from all actions of humans, which are universal and objective.

Moral facts sounds not appropriate and has nothing to do with moral good or bad.

How couldn't Jesus know that? He is God therefore omniscient. — MoK

Jesus was not a God. No one in human body is God.

Yes, we do not have a common conscience on many things. We also have a common conscience on many other things. — MoK

But we have common moral codes. That is what morality is about. Not conscience.

How could you judge that an act is right or wrong if you don't have any moral facts? — MoK

The moral codes give you the ground for moral judgements. What do you mean by moral facts?

I don't think so. I think that question refers to a state of being abandoned by God. — MoK

We can only infer from the saying. It sounds like he himself didn't know. If he knew for sure, he wouldn't have asked. He would have made a statement.

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

The saying in the quote is not a statement. It is in the form of question. He is asking questions. There is no truth or falsity in the question at all. He is asking someone to give him the answers for his question. It would be only true or false, if he said, " My God, You forsaken me."

Do you believe it? — Corvus

Of course not. How could I believe something contrary? — MoK

Many things in life is contrary, but people believe them. Being contrary doesn't mean that you cannot believe it. Remember belief can be irrational, and psychological.

I think you are talking about the conscience that the majority of people agree with it. The conscience is however not a fact. — MoK

Conscience is your psychological state of feeling guilt when doing morally wrong things.  It is not an agreement. Morality is based on the moral code.  Moral code is in the form of "Do this" or "Don't do this". 

Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. The point is that one needs a fact to realize this. There are however no facts when it comes to morality. Therefore, the morality is not objective. — MoK

Morality is a subject discussing what is morally right or wrong acts, principles, and the basis for the judgements of morally right and good actions of humans. You don't need facts. Maybe you need facts for the social science topics.

I want to discuss two things: 1) Morality is not objective — MoK

There are definitely the objective morality for sure. For example, harming others is morally wrong. No one in any corner of the universe would agree that is morally right.

2) Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

Of course not. Believing itself has little do with morality. Morality is about your actions, not beliefs.

However, there are many religious countries in the world, whose moral values are based on their God's teachings. They would say, X is morally right, because the God has said so.

So it depends on which religion you are talking about. Even in Christian religion some of the biblical doctrines are still basis for morality such as love your neighbors, treat others as you want to get treated etc.

I think all Christians believe that this verse is not a metaphor. — MoK

I am not sure who all the Christians are. And are all the Christians same in their beliefs? Are all the Christians the genuine Christians? There might be folks who claim to be the Christians but turn out to be some business minded folks trying to make money off the followers. Who knows? Are you a Christian yourself? What do you feel about this point?

They believe that Jesus died on the Cross and rose from death. — MoK

Do you believe it?

This verse together with other verses is paradoxical though. — MoK

Paradoxical is used for the puzzles or linguistic problems which have no rational explanation for its contradiction.  For example, this sentence is false.  It is true if it is false, and false if it is true.  

Absurdity is the description for the inexplicable situation from reality.  It is difficult to understand, but it is still possible to make inference and assumptions on the matter.

 The situation in the Bible is absurd, but not paradoxical.  It can be interpreted and explained in some theological way, although it might not be rational as such, and it could be a metaphor.  Or maybe God had his own ideas of doing things which human reason cannot decipher.

Due to the circumstantial situation of the stories in the Bible, no inference is right or wrong against them.  One can accept the interpretation as reasonable or unreasonable on the basis of one's point of view.  Does it make sense?

Suffering, and its inherent sacrifice, insinuates itself between complacency and affirmation (I am reminded of Dickinson's poem I Heard a Fly Buzz), and one simply cannot ignore it any more. It now becomes a meta-suffering addressed by a meta-question of its existence. Religion takes its first step. — Astrophel

Isn't Religion supposed to ease the human suffering? Or is human suffering the part of or requirement for religion?

Again, God's intervention is not the subject of this thread. — MoK

OK, you are just wanting to discuss about the morality of humans i.e.

humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. — MoK

:chin:

Thanks for your clarification.

Perhaps, He was experiencing the Father within Him. Most scholars think that this verse together with others is an indication that God is trion. — MoK

:ok:

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Going back to the OP, I wonder if the saying was a metaphor for depicting the absurdity in life on earth.

Not just for him, but all the lives facing the suffering of existence i.e. the inevitable old age, illness and death while living. Recall we are thrown into the world without our knowledge, agreement or desire by sheer absurdity according to Heidegger?

Absurdity is also the critical concept in some Existentialism heralded by Kierkeggard, Heidegger and Camus for the beings.

Religious beliefs would only be upgraded into faith when one leaps into the unseen and unknown abyss into God which is beyond rational knowledge in the religious existentialism.

Yes, there is a verse in the Bible. John 14:11: Believe me, when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. — MoK

Cool. How did he know the Father was in him, and what does it mean by the Father was in him?

I am arguing that humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. — MoK

You are still maintaining God's involvement in morality after claiming it was not your main point.

Anyhow I think God if we accept Him as a moral agent would care to intervene in human affairs. — MoK

Here as well. I am sure there are many sayings by God, which speaks on morality in the Bible. I am not familiar with the Bible, but just inferring.

That is not the point of my discussion in this thread. — MoK

You started the OP with "

God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

, hence it sounded like God's intervention on morality was highly significant factor in the thread.

God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

Even if we presume God is omniscient and know all the moral facts, but does he care or intervene on every human affairs and events happenings in the world?

Now, if we actually are able to parameterize the experience, we might just be able to recreate and capture the human experience. Essentially, you will be able to step-in your past, re-experience those moments. We might just be able to time travel in the past, only to observe though.

Do you think this is possible? — Ayush Jain

It wouldn't be possible in reality. Maybe it could be recorded in films, and virtual reality settings, and one could try to replicate a certain experience of someone or yours, but it would still not be the lived experience of actual reality. The hard fact in reality is that no one can go back to the past.

How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Maybe he was not aware of the possibility that he and God were one? Is there any saying in the Bible that he knew that he and God are one?

What does it mean by "are one"? That sounds a bit unclear.

Of course some math are found from the already established axioms and theorems via deduction.

To abstract means to 'take from'; to lift the math from the reality. — EnPassant

It seems the other way around i.e. from the reality, math is found, and applied back to the reality for the descriptions.

What about Combinatorics, Group theory, Set theory, Boolean algebra etc.?
The world is exactly the way these disciplines describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics — EnPassant

All these are the theories of Math. Theory means human abstract thinking on the world phenomenon, objects and events.

The world has been existing long and far before the first appearance of life on earth, and any of the theories were invented by the human abstract thinking.

When matter and anti matter collide they are transformed into pure energy. — EnPassant

"collide" is motion.

It is only possible to do this if reality is intrinsically mathematical. — EnPassant

They could have divided it by other numbers, and it would have worked fine. Reality is describable with mathematics, but reality is not mathematical. Mathe is a language, which numbers, formulas and equations are its alphabets, words and sentences.

Thanks mate. My point was that methodology of your knowledge and claims are as important as the knowledge itself. No worries. Hope we can continue discussions in some other topics in the future. All the best.

Me too. Good luck with you. :)

I am talking with MoK, not with Google. I know exactly what MoK has been saying on every points. I don't need to go to Google. I just pointed on some points which are not clear which MoK was addressing, and asked how "MoK" thinks on them, not what Google thinks, or the article says.

I am not talking about Google but scientific articles published that you can find using Googling. Do you believe in science? — MoK

Remember you asked me to Google? That's why I gave you the reason why I don't Google.

Well, Science. Of course I do believe in Science, but only the parts which is reasonable and making sense. If it is not reasonable or shady in their claims, then it must be put onto the table of the philosophical investigations, before accepting it.

You shouldn't believe in science as a whole, just because it says "science". That would be then religious beliefs you are having. Bear in mind, in the ancient times, science and religion were one subject.

I am not interested in what the popular media services saying unless they were really assisting in solving critical problems. I would be rather more interested in what each individual as a person thinks on the issues with his / her own mind. I believe that is the philosophical methodology and principle.

If you spent a little time googling then you could find many scientific articles on the topic. — MoK

Sure, but I try to think on them by myself reading the classic philosophical books. Google and A.I. parrots can be ok at times for finding best price for things or catching up with the news and weather forecasts.

But most importantly, blindly accepting the information from the popular media services whatever they throw to folks, and presenting them as absolute truths is not a good way doing philosophy in principle.

I am not saying "don't use them", but just saying, if you chose to use them, then back them up with concrete evidence. :)

There are no problems here. You can google it yourself. — MoK

Google, all the ChatBots and AI parrots are not good source for knowledge. Most of the times, they talk nonsense. I don't use them at all.

Yes. It could be lighter or darker though. — MoK

Please show us the photo evidence of the different images in the cortex for lighter and darker reds which are from the electromagnetic stimulation, and the ones from the red rose.

Yes. — MoK

With whom were the replicating experiments carried out? Please submit all the names and the details of the results which the experiments have been conducted to support your claims, from which the validity of the claims would be judged and accepted, or thrown out as unfounded claims.

Matter is energy. When energy 'condenses' into a particular pattern it forms an object; a hydrogen atom, a chair, a table. — EnPassant

Matter itself is not energy. Matter combined with motion is energy.

Ultimately time is a mathematical system. All mathematical systems are time because they describe how mathematical objects behave. How does the graph of a cubic equation change? It changes according to the algebra of the cubic equation. Algebra is mathematical time. — EnPassant

When EnPassant is born, he is 0 year old. When he became 40 years old, he says he is 40 years old. What does it mean? It means that EnPassant has lived the duration of the Earth has rotated around the Sun for 40 times. That is all. That is what time is. They divided 1 year into 12 months, 1 months into 30 or 31 days, and 1 day into 24 hours so on. Math doesn't describe anything. Humans do using numbers and time.

The definition of time as change is not satisfactory. — EnPassant

My definition of time, if you asked me, is again an abstract concept.   
There is no physical time in reality.  There are only motions and changes.  We apply the concept of time to measure the duration and intervals of the motions and changes.

Think of the origin of time, where it came from.  It came from the cultural contract made of the idea and observation on the risings and settings of the sun.

If the Earth stopped rotating the Sun, there would be no days, months and years.  There will be no hours and minutes and seconds without the days.

The Chinese folks use the changing Moon as the criteria of measuring their time.  It is called the Moon Calendar.

Outside of the Solar system, there is no time that you could measure or observe.  Perhaps you could carry some electronic device for measuring time, and tell time based on the Earth time system, if you were traveling into some galaxies.  But it is not some absolute time originated from the whole universe.  It would still be measurements of intervals and duration based on the time contract based on the solar rotation of the Earth around the Sun programmed into the electronic clock.

That is, it is the logic of change. Relativity describes physical time. Change happens according to a certain mathematical pattern. This pattern is time. Mathematics is also a pattern and a time order. It is mathematical time or abstract time. — EnPassant

Could you elaborate further? What do you mean by "logic of change"? How does relativity describe physical time? What do you mean by mathematical pattern? Mathematical time? What are they in real life examples?

Oh ha ha! You made a little joke about my handle! No one ever did that before; I should have thought about that when I chose the label. — unenlightened

I am delighted that you got the joke. :nerd: