Circular reasoning is when a premise presupposes the conclusion as true: I didn’t do that. Also, why would it have to be magical? — Bob Ross

Here's what I inferred to be your reasoning:

1.God is omniscient (possesses all possible knowledge)
2. God is simple;
3. Therefore knowledge doesn't entail parts

But you didn't explicitly make this argument, so I haven't been fair. Perhaps you can show it's very reasonable to assume knowledge does not entail parts. Please do so.

Just think about how you will, and how this willing—even without what we stereotypically refer to as rational deliberation—is correspondence with at least primitive knowledge. Think of a plant growing towards the sunlight. I am just noting that we can see—by analogy—how a being can have knowledge and yet not be computating like a human brain or AI would. — Bob Ross

You've identified no "primitive knowledge" that exists independent of a physical medium. My willing entails physical processes (e.g. neurons firing in a sequence based on action potentials that could be established either by learning, or be "hard wired") in a brain. Deliberation entails access to memories which are stored in the brain (possibly in the form of action potentials of neurons). A plant certainly isn't making a decision - it's growth is entirely a result of its physiological mechanisms, expending energy in the most entropically favorable way.

I claimed there was circular reasoning in your statement,"although you are right that a being with one property is simpler than a being with more than one; my rebuttle is that God’s properties are reducible to each other." And you're correct that you haven't stated a strictly circular argument (I'm making an assumption that you chose to equate multiple properties with a single property to rationalize your claim that God is "simple") You've given no argument at all, and haven't articulated the rationalization I assumed. So I can certainly be wrong.

So make an objective case for the claim that an object with seemingly multiple properties is actually an object with a single property in your ontology, and show that this is more reasonable than considering multiple properties to be distinct. To be clear, I'm referring to intrinsic properties, not just attributes we talk about.

This argument necessitates that an up-quark is not comprised of anything else and is non-spatiotemporal. — Bob Ross

No, it doesn't. It just assumes individual up-quarks exist as particulars, and that (generically) "up-quark" is a universal (it exists in multiple instantiations). Perhaps that's inconsistent with your ontology, but that's my point: your argument depends on some specific assumptions about ontology.

then there would be only one since there’s nothing ontologically distinguishing them. What you are doing is talking about separate quarks and thinking that since they are simple that they are absolutely simple. — Bob Ross

Individual up-quarks are distinguishable at a point of time by their spatial location. It's persisting identity is uniquely identified by it's location in space across each point of time. (Locations in space are relative, but in this case, we can consider it relative to itself).

Regarding "being simple": I'm simply assuming they are not decomposible into other things. If you wish to equate undecomposible with "simple" - I have no objection.

I understand they say quarks have no parts in science — Bob Ross

Then you have an incorrect understanding. They are part of the standard model of particle physics, which is an active field of research. I'm not insisting they are actually the most fundamental level of reality (quantum field theory treats them as disturbances in fields), but all macro objects in the universe have quarks as part of their composition.

I was an atheist before this style of argumentation found its way onto my desk; so, you are grossly making assumptions here — Bob Ross

Ed Feser was also an atheist, and he says he converted because Thomist metaphsyics "made sense" to him. I've read a couple of his books, and these suggest that he just thinks Thomism is coherent and answers the questions he felt important. I haven't seen him make a case for Thomism vs (say) metaphysical naturalism (his polemical attack on "new atheists" is irrelevant).

I've admitted that I've made assumptions. They're based on the assumptions I've seen others (including Feser) make when arguing for deism. In all my years debating arguments for deism with theists, I've found that 100% of the time, they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions - so when I see a debatable metaphysical assumption, I shine a light on it. But I'll try to avoid jumping to conclusions with you, and give you the opportunity to make an objective case for each of the metaphysical assumptions I've identified so far.

Please let's discuss this. I think its an important issue and as a female OBSESSED with philosophy, seeing women fall short on it saddens me deeply. I also see many errors in my own self regarding my focus etc. Is it just me or is it all women? There are many things to talk about here. — EcceHomo

I found this study, with data through 2016 (unfortunately).

There seems to be an increasing trend for women to study philosophy- most apparent in the graphs for women choosing it as a major when entering college, and women getting a bachelor's degree. The graph for awarded-PhDs doesn't show a clear trend, but it would make sense for there to be a lag vs the 1st two categories.

This isn't your issue, but the demographics show a worse state of affairs for racial/ethnic minorities than for women.

As a right-wing conservative having millions of illegals in your country is translated to something like "lawlessness". As a left-wing liberal having millions of illegals is translated to something like modern slavery, extreme inequality and less democracy. — Eros1982

Not really. The undocumented workers are making more in the US than they could in their home country. The fact we'd take advantage of that seems similar to choosing to purchase products manufactured in countries with low wages, because they're cheaper.

Irrespective of the morality and legality, their presence is baked into the economy:

"More than two-thirds of U.S. crop workers are foreign born, according to the USDA. Many of them came to the country through the H-2A visas, but officials estimate that 42% of the workers are undocumented migrants." -- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-deportation-plan-effects-undocumented-farmers/

So the cost of harvesting will increase, and some may not get harvested at all.

I have no statistics, but I understand home construction utilizes a lot of undocumented workers. Prices will rise.

The Social Security trust fund will be negatively impacted:
"In 2022, unauthorized immigrants contributed $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes, typically by working under borrowed or fraudulent Social Security numbers. Unauthorized immigrants, however, are ineligible to claim Social Security benefits."
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/immigration-social-security-solvency/

Undocumented workers are consumers: they spend the money they make, so they contribute to GDP.

I'm not suggesting we should have open borders, but rather that the full impact of proposed actions should be taken into account and plans adjusted accordingly.

Feelings are simply subjective experiences of reality. My point is that we may have different subjective feelings as to what is good, but there is an objective reality to good underneath it. Just like the experience of a red wavelength is not the same as the dry analysis of what is objectively red, the experience of an objective morality is not the same as our subjective experience of it. — Philosophim

So it appears you have some sort of hypothesis that goodness is some sort of existing entity that we perceive, or perhaps that its a physical property of...something (what?) Clarify exactly what you're proposing exists, and what facts this hypothesis is supposed to explain.

Offhand, this just seems like an assumption you make because you want to believe there is some objective basis for morality. So please clear this up for me.

If I have a son or daughter that cannot feel empathy, I can teach them how to behave in social situations regardless. But I have to give them more than, "You have to behave this way because I feel its good, or others feel its good." Why should I listen otherwise? Most other people's feelings are irrelevant to me, and in many situations, should be. If moralities base is on feelings only, then the only reason to shape or follow any moral code is feelings. That's not how societies work. That's not how people work. — Philosophim

If you were to have a child who lacks empathy, I would suggest consulting psychologists with expertise with trying to teach morals to sociopaths, since that is the defining feature of sociopaths. My understanding is that it would be very challenging (which is partly why I believe morality is rooted in the feelings of empathy). My non-expert opinion is that you should teach them there's a God who will punish them for their sins (appealing to their personal self-interest). Even if you don't believe it, it's a very common belief - so it's socially acceptable and has the potential for getting support from the members of the church you would join.

That is because you are still only thinking in terms of subjective experience instead of looking for an objective foundation. — Philosophim

I see no reason to believe there is an objective foundation. You haven't provided one. I await your clarifying your hypothesis, and its factual basis.

"Should there be any evolution at all?"
— Philosophim
Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement?
— Relativist

No. Should entails what is optimum for a system. In this case the system is "existence".

Clarify what you mean by "existence". For example, are you referring to the fact that something exists? Or that everything that happens to exist does exist? Or perhaps that humans exist, or maybe that you (yourself) exists?

Also: on what basis is this system optimized? E.g. prolonging the system's existence? Enlarging its scope (like having more children)?

Either we're really not on the same page anymore, or you're purposefully avoiding the point. Emotions are not the same as reasons. Having an emotion, "I feel good, so its moral," is not the same as, "We should do this because this outcome is better than that outcome no matter how I feel." — Philosophim

I agree, and I tried to address this when I clarified that the fundamental basis could be as simple as: the true meanings of good/bad entailing the feelings they invoke with respect to some very simple situations: the vicarious feeling we get when considering someone suffering in some way (i.e. empathy).

This doesn't mean we must trust our feelings as moral judgements in all cases - it just means the meanings of good/bad the words have a non-verbal/emotive aspect to them. A computer couldn't understand it as we do, because they lack emotions.

I also discussed the fact that we also apply learnings (what we teach your children and what our society teaches us) and reasoning when making moral judgements - so it's certainly much more than feelings.

It seems that I didn't get my point across before, but I hope I've succeeded now. If not, then ask.

I am not including a God in this discussion, I have told you a God is not part of this discussion, — Philosophim

You asked me to explain why I suggested it ("This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is"). I did just that: I showed that your unsupported assertion (that reason or whim must be involved) entails a God. I provided my analysis so you can identify a flaw in it. Instead, you're just complaining that I said it.

Except I've told you I'm looking for something apart from mind. Something core to existence itself. I don't mind if you introduce a mind or think it cannot exist without a mind, but I myself am not implying an objective morality necessitates a mind. — Philosophim

How can that be? How can objective morality exist without minds? Before humans existed, was bank fraud wrong? Was altruism good, when there were no humans?

As I've tried to explain, it appears to me that human morality is entirely a human thing: it relates to human actions, and it entails human judgement. If you think it's more than that, then explain how that can be. Explain how bank fraud or murder is wrong even if there are no humans.

"Should there be any evolution at all?" — Philosophim

Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement? If so, who's judgement are you interested in? Are you just asking because you want input to help you form a judgement?

If you think "should" questions are something other than human judgements, explain how this can be.

Thanks for the article. I read it, as well as the study it linked to. The study results make a good case for some things not to do in DEI trainings. For example, it measured reactions to reading:

“White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview. Racism is the norm; it is not unusual. As a result, interaction with White people is at times so overwhelming, draining, and incomprehensible that it causes serious anguish for People of Color.”

This resulted in a backlash. This seems hardly surprising. Essentially telling people they are evil, but didn't know it, would piss people off and make them defensive.

I was surprised to read that, according to the study, this sort of inflammatory language is common in diversity training. It makes me glad the study was done. I can absolutely agree that this is a terrible approach. But it doesn't mean diversity, equity, and inclusion aren't positive objectives, nor that effective training is impossible. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to purge this sort of thing from the training and focus on positive messages. I have in mind the sort of DEI training I received at Exxon-Mobil, which I described in another post.

Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism.
— Relativist

A feeling and a reason are two different products of the mind. A feeling is an impetus or summary that compels a person to action. A reason is the result of an analyzed situation that one can decide to act on.
This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is. — Philosophim

You had said: "Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim."

A whim is also a product of a mind - we would not describe the random result of a quantum collapse as a "whim". So both your options entail a mind. You seemed to imply that whatever happens has been caused or influenced by reasons/whims, and this would entail one or more supernatural actors. For brevity, assume one mind.

Although you haven't suggested that this mind created the world (which would make it a god), you nevertheless seem to think everything that exists is due to reason or whim. This would apply to this mind as well. Once again, a vicious infinite regress of minds to provide a whim or reason. The best solution to this is a single mind - a god, which exists necessarily - and not for a reason or due to whim.

No, then you should agree with my conclusion that "There should be existence" is the logically necessary base of an objective morality. You'll need to give greater detail why this isn't the case. — Philosophim

Non-sequitur. "Should" implies there being a reason, something other than a physical account of causation. So again, you're implying a mind. But independently of this. if something exists necessarily, no reason is needed to explain it other than the necessity of its existence, it can't NOT exist. This is the traditional reasoning behind the deistic argument from contingency, but applies equally to any uncaused first cause, even a materialistic one.

Right, the underlying value for having that feeling is the species survival. But should the species survive? .... isn't the underlying objective purpose to ensure the species continues? Why should any species continue? — Philosophim

No, not really- there's no purpose behind evolution that is directing it (intelligent design notwithstanding - unless you believe in a god); it only seems that way, because we often focus on the organisms that comprise a species. Here's biological view of it:

Evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of alleles* (including the development of new alleles through mutation), within a gene pool** over time.

*An allele is a gene variant, such as the variant that results in red hair or blue eyes.
**gene pool: all the alleles in a population of organisms that interbreed.

When an organism survives to maturity and reproduces, it is inserting genes into the gene pool. The longer it lives, the more opportunity to reproduce and thus to propagate is genes. If certain alleles (individually or in combination with others) produces a survival advantage, then over time - these alleles can come to dominate. The average impact to a gene pool that one organism can have is proportional to the size of the population - this is simple probability (1 out of 1000 organisms vs 1 out of 1000000).

Over time, a subpopulation may become isolated from the mother population, and if this persists - that subpopulation's gene pool will evolve independently from the mother gene pool, and over time, this can result in a new species- the gene pool is quite a bit different from the original pool (a pool that may have also evolved away from what it was at the split).

This doesn't entail an objective, it just entails genetic mutations that occur in a gene pool that may or may not provide an advantage to organisms that effects how much they reproduce.

that's what I'm trying to pin down in the OP. The beginnings of any rational discussion of morality must conclude that given the options of existence vs complete non-existence, existence is better, and therefore the base of any good reason. — Philosophim

We all want to live, and most of us would like humanity to live on after our own deaths. I see no reason to think that this common desire exists independently of humans, and that's much of what I've been arguing. But I can agree that human (intersubjective*) morality is consistent with our drive/desire for humanity to continue and for it to flourish.

*In philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, intersubjectivity is the relation or intersection between people's cognitive perspectives.

Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim. — Philosophim

Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism. Naturalism would imply that what occurs is a product of blind, undirected nature - neither reasons nor whims.

... Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary.
— Relativist

That is, (minus the infinite regress) essentially what the OP proves. Therefore we may be in agreement conceptually, just not semantically. — Philosophim

Then you should agree your question, "Should there be existence?" is inapplicable, and certainly has nothing to do with morality.

There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so.
— Relativist

Of course, but that doesn't mean there is an objective underlying reason why that feeling exists. — Philosophim

The behavior (having the feeling that induces the actions) has a survival value for the species, so that could account for its presence - demonstrating it being consistent with naturalism. In this case, there isn't a reason this particular trait evolved. Other species evolve differently; example: some produce so many offspring that there's high probability some will survive to reproduce.

The idea that feelings alone are all we have to go on in morals and there can be no objective details does not pan out in any other feelings we have, why in your mind are moral feelings an exception?

I'm not suggesting that feelings fully account for all morality, just that they are at the core. A feeling can account for the concepts of "good" and "bad": hurting me invokes a "bad" feeling; helping me invokes a "good" feeling. Through empathy, these feelings get evoked vicariously. Neither concept can be understood solely by their dictionary definitions - the link to the feelings must be present. Sociopaths lack the link. They could be forced to memorize a moral code, but they'll lack the connection to their feelings.

This innate capacity for perceiving good and evil is a sine qua non for morality, but it's only the beginning of the story. From there, we then think abstractly, apply reasoning, and we learn things (including the morality further developed by others).

What feels right instinctually IS right and good.
— Relativist

No one objectively agrees to that.... — Philosophim

I was only referring only to the fundamental basis of right(good) and wrong (bad). We still learn things - such as what you've taught your children. And we have other feelings that lead us in other directions, and different people will apply different reasoning and differrent sets of beliefs.

Those are reasons why something exists. They are not reasons that it should exist. — Philosophim

Why must there be reasons?

At the end, even that boils down to the prime question, "Should there be existence at all?" Its irrelevant why there is existence. Should there be existence? And if there is an objective morality the OP notes that the only rational conclusion to be made is, "Yes". — Philosophim

Your question can only be meaningful if existence itself is contingent. I don't think it can be contingent, because contingency entails a source of contingency. That source of contingency would have to exist. If that is contingent, it needs a source...ad infinitum - a vicious infinite regress. Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary. So a "should" (a reason) doesn't apply.

It seems odd that morality just 'suddenly' appears when life comes about. — Philosophim

As you noted, empathy didn't appear suddenly when humans developed. In addition, parents of most species feel some sort of affection for their offspring. There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so. They may not contemplate the risks in advance, nor do they engage in a mental deliberation weighing the pros and cons before acting. They lack the capacity to do this. Be we have the capacity, and that's what we add to our instinctual inclinations- we intellectualize them, and think abstractly about them. What feels right instinctually IS right and good.

So if we begin to say, "Its good that the species survive," we can ask, "Why?" "Because I feel like it." Then why do we bother saving people who want to commit suicide? The species will continue. Why not murder anyone who gets in our way? The species will continue, and I'll have more resources for me. Its a bit more than, "I want, gimme, I feel, gimme, I'm happy to do all sorts of atrocities for my feelings, gimme." — Philosophim

You minimize the "feeling like it". It's a strong feeling. We don't want others to commit suicide because we fear death for ourselves, and we empathetically extend this to others. By analogy, each dog in a pack will fight for other members of the pack. I imagine that if they could speak, they would say it's the right thing to do

I get the strong feeling that you want there to be meaning to existence - perhaps you actually need it to be the case. Do you think this could be the case? If so, I think I can give you something more helpful than my expressing disagreement with you.

I'm going to follow that up with, "Why do you need a God to exist for there to be an objective morality?" I see an objective morality as a rule of existence. — Philosophim

Objective morals are consistent with theism, and inconsistent with physicalism. They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence.

"Nonsense" is not an argument. Explain to me where I'm wrong in demonstrating that all moral questions boil down to this fundamental question. Have you also proven that an objective morality cannot be separated from humans? Not yet. Feel free to provide examples. — Philosophim

I should have said "seemingly incoherent", because I can't see how to make sense of them. But no, I can't prove objective morals can't exist independently of humans, any more than I can prove the nonexistence of gods, but "not provably false" is not a justification for believing something. So I don't believe such things exist. You seem to think they do, so tell me the justification for that belief.

We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion.
— Relativist

But this is not a subjective advantage. You have a subjective experience of this advantage, but what is the objective underlying moral rule?.. — Philosophim

This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts. Consider that the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) is consistent with empathy- vicariously experiencing the suffering of others. That alone could serve as the basis for developing a moral system.

Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?

Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history. As I said I presume our empathy had a survival advantage. I don't know that I'm right, but I think it entails fewer metaphysical assumptions than you would need. But you're welcome to provide a simple basis.

Without 1, 2 could not exist, though the reverse doesn’t hold. Since it is because of the existence of 1, or one thing, that there can be 2, or two things, then the former can be said to be the cause of the latter.

Does this hold? Surely this argument has been made plenty times before, no? — Pretty

Numbers do not exist. They are abstractions. One-ness and two-ness (etc) exist, as properties of groups of objects. There is a logical relation between one-ness and two-ness, but a logical relation is not a "cause".

Others disagree. Here's a poll: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/

To be clear, this isn't focused on the military, but the military is still a workplace.

"More than half of workers (54%) say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing DEI. Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%)."

Suppose we were to put it to a vote. The majority of voters are white- the group least likely to be victims of prejudice. Would it really make sense to eliminate it based on a majority vote? I don't think so.

Prejudice has not disappeared from our society, and was institutionalized in the military in the past. Acknowledging the racial and ethnic discrimination that occurred in the past demonstrates the current inclusiveness and distinguishes it from the prejudices that persist outside the military. This is not antithetical to unity.

Mississippi bill would pay bounty hunters to catch undocumented immigrants

President Trump’s administration has made it clear that deporting illegal immigrants is a priority, and we are proud to do our part here in Mississippi to help support his agenda and protect our citizens.”

Keen and Barton suggested offering a $1,000 reward to registered bounty hunters for each successful deportation they help facilitate, which would be funded by the general assembly and administered by the state treasurer, according to a press release from his office.

If this passes, non-Whites should steer clear of Mississipi.

I can grasp some reasons why conservatives oppose DEI and affirmative action: they infer that it entails discrimination against their kind (white, heterosexual, etc). Irrespective of whether they are correct (which I'm skeptical of), I'd like to understand why this is deemed appropriate:

US Air Force removes lessons on black WWII pilots from training

Donald Trump's move to block diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has led to the US Air Force removing material on the role of black and female pilots during World War Two from its training programmes.

A military official said "immediate steps" were taken to remove material to "ensure compliance" with the US president's order, the BBC's US news partner CBS reported.

Trainee troops were previously shown footage of pioneering servicemen and women as part of DEI courses during basic military training.

Trump signed an executive order banning such programmes in the federal government soon after returning to office, fulfilling a pledge he repeatedly made during the campaign.

The OP does not argue for, nor need a God to argue for an objective morality. — Philosophim

Without a God, how can there exist objective morality? That's why I brought it up, and also brought up intersubjectivity.

Yes, this is a more common approach to the issue. But have you read the OP? I'm trying to establish what at minimum, must exist in any objective morality. — Philosophim

Yes, and I disagree with most of it. For example:

"All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?""
This is nonsense if, as I explained, morality is not objective in a transcendent sense of existing independently of humans. That's why I brought up "obective moral values" and the basis of morals being empathy.

If morality is entirely intersubjective among humans, moral judgements apply to things that relate to humans and are contingent upon the human perspective. It means morality is a consequence of our existence, and this is problematic for your claims.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to find is a base for an objective morality that builds up to something which better explains why we have the moral intuitions that we do, and a guide to understand beyond instinct and emotion. — Philosophim

We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion. IMO, empathy IS the base because it broadens our self-survival instinct beyond ourselves. The only further "beyond" to this is the reasoning we apply to develop morality more broadly.

A non-controversial example is law enforcement. Also: minimizing air and water pollution.

There is no such thing as a “Public Weal” — NOS4A2

There is at least the potential of a public interest.

Ah! I see your point.

IMO, you underestimate the fealty of Trump's supporters. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/22/trump-pardons-republicans

It's theoretically illegal, but since Presidents are above the law, that may not matter.

That Nazi slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual” is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolini’s writings. — NOS4A2

That seems overly simplistic, but tell me if you think the proposition ("The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”) is intrinsically false - meaning that it's necessarily wrong in all respects and in all contexts.

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

Christians rationalize this as the product of his human nature. That human nature could experience real human suffering, without which there could be no atonement.

A more objective view would treat this as evidence the author of Mark didn't view Jesus as being truly one with God. Luke chose to put different last words in Jesus' mouth: "Into your hands, I commend my spirit".

A couple of recent events that add to the concerns about Trump: his firing of 12 Inspectors General, and his pardoning of the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the 1/6 Capitol break-in.

“Success is going to be retribution...We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.” -Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys leader, convicted of seditious conspiracy for conspring to break into the Capitol on 1/6.

I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective. — Philosophim

If you assume morality is either objective or subjective, then one can consider the metaphysical implications. This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false.

Regardless, what's the basis for the premise that OMVs exist? It's typically based on our moral intuitions. But in your op, you said:

A subjective morality is based on our own feelings and intuitions. An objective morality would be something that could be evaluated apart from our feelings and intuitions using logic and objectively measurable identities. — Philosophim

I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings.

The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications. It's consistent with the possibility that OMVs exist but doesn't entail their existence, and doesn't require simply assuming they exist (as you proposed).

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio calls for retribution in chilling interview with Alex Jones hours after prison release

Among the criminals pardoned by Trump is Enrique Tarrio. Tarrio was given a 22-year sentence after being convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the break-in of the Capitol on 1/6. The message this sends: loyalty to me is more important than rule of law.

Tarrio was a guest of Alex Jones, where he said, “The people who did this, they need to feel the heat, they need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted."

“Success is going to be retribution,” he added. “We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.”

Since they would feel unconstrained by law, they have a lot of power to wield. The parallels to Hitler's brown shirts do not seem hyperbolic.

Yet another chilling action to loosen the administrative constraints on Trump's power:

Trump uses mass firing to remove independent inspectors general at a series of agencies

The Trump administration has fired more than a dozen independent inspectors general at government agencies, a sweeping action to remove oversight of his new administration that some members of Congress are suggesting violated federal oversight laws...The Washington Post, which first reported the firings, said that most were appointees from Trump’s first term.

Now, I would say that I reject that encoding entails that a being must have parts; or that, perhaps, knowledge entails the requirement to encode/decode it. I think you are thinking of something like an AI or human brain, when God is disanalogous to this. God is pure will and being. Willing requires knowledge, but not knowledge necessarily in the sense of computation. — Bob Ross

So you assume some magical sort of knowledge is metaphysically possible in order to prove there exists a being who has it. Circular reasoning.

So, although you are right that a being with one property is simpler than a being with more than one; my rebuttle is that God’s properties are reducible to each other — Bob Ross

More circular reasoning.

But then you are saying that two things which are have absolutely no ontological differences are ontologically distinct! — Bob Ross

I'm referring to identical intrinsic properties. Example: the elementary particles. Every up-quark is identical to every other, except in its external relations to other particles, and they're certainly ontologically distinct.

This depends on Thomist metaphysics which I see no reason to accept (e.g. that an ontological object can have "actual" and "potency" as intrinsic properties).

I didn’t make an argument from change: I didn’t import that part of Thomistic metaphysics. My argument is from the contingency relations of composition. — Bob Ross

So what? You made assumptions that would entail a God. To be effective as an argument, you would need to use mutually agreed premises. You're just rationalizing something you already believe.

I'll give you a few objections:

knowledge = organized data;
data entails encoding;
encoding entails parts;
Therefore omniscience would entail parts.

6. Therefore, an infinite series of composed beings is impossible.
7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3) — Bob Ross

This seems to be equivalent to argument I've made that there must be a "bottom layer" of reality, This is called metaphysical foundationalism. I agree with it, but...[

8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts. — Bob Ross

This is problematic. A being with one property is simpler than a being with multiple properties, even if cannot be decomposed into more fundamental parts.

9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.

non-sequitur. Two identical beings could exist, and a set of multiple "simple" beings (no parts) could exist with non-identical properties. Because of this, both of the following are non-sequitur:

10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist

This next one is loaded with metaphysical assumptions that I see no reason to accept:

12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other. — Bob Ross

This depends on Thomist metaphysics which I see no reason to accept (e.g. that an ontological object can have "actual" and "potency" as intrinsic properties).

Suppose the bottom layer of reality consists of electrons and protons (pretend they are both non-decomposible). Protons would interact with because they have opposite electric charges, and would interact with each other because they have the same charge. Such a scenario seems logically possible - and it's inconsistent with your framework.

A bottom layer of reality seems likely to be quantum based, and I suspect Thomist metaphysics isn't compatible with QM.

Thomist is a theistic metaphysics - Aquinas developed it from Aristotelian metaphysics, in order to make sense of God's existence. So it's unsurprising that it would entail a God. I get the fact that this would appeal to theists, but it has no power to persuade non-theists, unless you succeed in fooling them into treating the metaphysical framework as true.

Relativist I said I disagreed about the Bishop. Not quite sure why you're asking about Trump's post? — AmadeusD

I was trying to understand what you were actually disagreeing with when you said, "I disagree about the Bishop"? I thought (mistakenly?) you were disagreeing with my assessment of Trump's post.

I disagree about hte Bishop, and that's fine. — AmadeusD

I said Trump's post was irrational, rude, and full of lies. Do you think it was rational, polite, and factually true?

DACA he has more recently said he's going to find ways to ensure they can stay. — AmadeusD

He said that in 2017 too. A few months later, tried to terminate their protected status. SCOTUS stopped it. He can just as easily change his mind this time around, and try to find a way around the SCOTUS ruling.

Fwiw, I have no issue with teh Bishop. I have no issue with Trump having an issue with her either. — AmadeusD

Her message was perfectly reasonable. His criticism was not - it was irrational, rude, and full of lies.

No, whatever you were quoting lied, — NOS4A2

He absolutely said those things, on "Truth" Social. Here's the full text:

The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart. She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into the Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology! t

Trump told several lies here. The quote I gave contained no lies.

It requires you to factor in people’s race or gender or sexuality as a factor in how you treat people. Do you do that? — NOS4A2

I try. When I've failed to do that, I've offended people needlessly. I've seen other people who've underestimated individuals because of their gender. I've worked with other managers who used language that is racist and sexist. All these things are related to DEI.

I've worked in environments in which my workers were entirely male. We sometimes interacted in ways that would be offensive around women. I came to learn this sort of behavior is inappropriate. This is DEI.

I worked for Exxon-Mobile when the company began off-shoring jobs, to take advantage of cheap labor - and I led a group of 150 people based in Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia. I was glad I'd received some DEI training specifically addressing their cultural perspectives.

You identified no lie. I referred to "apparent logic' - I drew an inference. An incorrect inference is not a lie. If you think my inference was indeed incorrect, then explain Trump's negative reaction to the Bishop's comments - specifically her statement that the vast majority of them are 'not criminals' but rather “good neighbors," (which is absolutely true) - which tacitly acknowledges that there are some criminals. Is it reasonable to expect a Christian bishop to focus on the minority that are criminals to a man that routinely overstates the situation and almost never demonstrates empathy? Is there something wrong with preaching a value consistent with her faith?

How so? Remember that I asked specifically about all aspects of DEI, not affirmative action.

When I worked for Exxon-Mobil as a supervisor I had to attend DEI training. I found it informative and eye-opening. There was nothing about it that was discriminatory to any groups, including the white people that you seem concerned about.

See my response to @Amadeus.

Well, he's embraced the H-1B visa holders, so it's technically not *all* immigrants, but his intentions are broader than just pursuing undocumented immigrants.

He has often attacked immigrants who are here legally with some protected status. Example: the Haitians who he told us "are eating the dogs". He's vowed to deport them (see: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-attacks-haitian-immigrants-have-stop-2024-09-13/).

He's cancelled admissions for refugees previously approved for entering. (https://apnews.com/article/refugees-flights-trump-immigration-border-resettlement-33ebaa34bc4d0c069a22ee7aa5f8ff6d).

He's indicated he will deport mixed-status families - which means deporting US citizens with family members who are undocumented. (This is one specific group the bishop asked Trump to have empathy for). https://www.axios.com/2024/12/08/trump-immigration-deportation-us-citizens

He's claimed the 14th Amendment doesn't grant citizenship to anyone born in the US. https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order-immigrants-fc7dd75ba1fb0a10f56b2a85b92dbe53

In 2017, he tried to eliminate DACA: https://www.nilc.org/articles/supreme-court-overturns-trump-administrations-termination-of-daca/

No doubt, but I'm curious to see if there's any deeper thought beyond the view that DEI oppresses the poor white race because it's kinda like affirmative action.

But if definitions like "greateer than" and "less than" are only defined within a system, it follows that they cannot be applied outside it. Isn't that at least close to the OP's conclusion? — Ludwig V

Actually, because the reals and integer systems are applicable to the real world (they were developed by analyzing aspects of the real world), the terms "greater than" and "less than" do apply meaningfully.

The transfinite system was not developed directly from real world analysis, but from analysis of implications of sets.

There is a constant tension here around the fact that counting cannot be completed and the temptation or desire to think of the infinite as some sort of destination or limit. — Ludwig V

Agreed- it results in people treating infinity like a natural, or real, number. Then when non-mathematicians hear of transfinite numbers, it reinforces that false view - because it turns infinities into "numbers" but only in a very specialized sense.