But the difficulty is that objective knowledge is generally quantitative in nature. — Wayfarer

Could you expand on that quantitative nature? I'm not sure what to make of that.

You failed to realize, even though I already told you, that I didn't define the deistic god. What you quoted was a simplified description of what I think it essentially boils down to. Big difference.

And the second quote is just the problem that any Deistic god always seems to have.

I got the impression you were blaming it on big businesses, rather than the strangulation of the market by the state. Well, the difference is not that great at this point, since corporate sharks have had a hand in the state for quite a while anyway. So yea, I probably am still making your case. :)

However, I possibly can see an argument being made that by forcing this artist or any artist to work against their beliefs, means they cannot produce true works of art and it is in the freedom of expression that works of art are produced. — Cavacava

I know little about the details of the case, but you brought some interesting complexity to it. But I'd consider that a weasel argument, as works of art are always constrained in some way, anyway. Constraints are in fact preferable, as they are what gives it a direction, and what brings out the best of our creativity.

But also, having one or more specific instances where the constraints are unappealing isn't an infringement on freedom of expression: it's actually par for the course if you're doing any kind of art by request. The baker is still perfectly free to express himself as he enjoys the rest of the time. Or even to not take requests. There's work, and there's art. Mixing the two comes with its caveats.

I would also agree with Bloomberg. I guess I wouldn't be their favorite judge. :D

It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false. — BlueBanana

Ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway. — Sephi

The one thing in common between every single concept of god is that god created everything. Obviously, "everything" includes the world. ;)

But now, big business has closed off those options. — MikeL

I think I would point that finger more at the remnants of socialism and whatnot. Bureaucracy, gov interventionism, among other things, is what really gets in the way of small entrepreneurs. They strangulate the market in favor of monopolies.

Not that monopolies are the good guys or anything. Just that in a non strangulated market they wouldn't have such an easy time because small entrepreneurs would have better chances.

That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world. — BlueBanana

None of what I said implies that god didn't create the world. Ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway.

Mind you that the deistic god is not the god of the bible. There's not just one concept of deistic gods, but even in the most involved ones, we're not exactly talking about the god that's described in Genesis. We're talking about a god that planted a seed, so to speak, and then let things run their course. Now take your pick for the concept your like, the one that sits back and enjoys the show, or the one that intervenes and guides things, or a variant in between.

And "the thing that first existed" is supposedly the "seed". And what I was saying is that "the thing that first existed" is only ever such to the best of our limited knowledge, thus any such attribution has to be arbitrary.

That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined. — BlueBanana

I haven't defined god... But what you're saying makes no difference. As you said each person has their own definition, so I generalized their applications. And yes, I know of other definitions of gods, but I was referring specifically to the Deistic one, and only as basis to illustrate my reasoning.

I would say the lack of a definition (among other things) has rendered it unfalsifiable, rather.

About the deistic god thing, I'm just saying it's an arbitrary decision, to attribute the name God to a thing, when there's not a clear definition from where to determine what kind of thing it ought to be attributed to in the first place. And besides that, it's a decision that will likely be revealed to be wrong, since the first thing that existed is only the first thing until science finds something else that existed before it.

Now, your concept is different, but also seemed in a way a bit arbitrary. It sounded like you attributing gods will to the natural "flow" of physics (the formation of molecules and so on, which science explains through the forces of physics and other things). I must admit though that I haven't read the posts you mentioned.

The relation to the OP is that I was reading it and constantly getting that warning in my head that the premise (God) was not quite justified... (and yea, I don't believe in god and all that, but I don't mind humoring these concepts)

To give you a quick example of what was going on in my head: if I was telling you a story about how hunters are stupid for hunting birds with spoons... you'd be listening to me with amusement and thinking "but... no one ever hunts birds with spoons!". :)

Sadly I have never read much of the any philosophers... but I'll do some research about the things you mentioned. Thanks.

I'm saying, a lot of your thinking is based around identity politics whether you know it or not. — Wayfarer

I still take a bit of an issue with that. At first I thought of including another example that had nothing to do with identity politics (or politics even), but decided the post was already too long. It involved notions in the lines of "you don't steal from me, I don't steal from you", "you don't invade my space and I don't invade yours". Etc. There are also objective reasons to determine that respecting those notions is more beneficial to everyone involved.

The unfortunate fact is that not everyone can be correct about everything; — Wayfarer

That is in fact the very thing that makes me reject subjective morals (I don't find that unfortunate though). Now, if I remove subjective morals, what I have left, is it still morality of some kind? (maybe I could've made my entire post just this question... :s )

So morality is mere courtesy? — Banno

What use would a person alone in the woods have for morality? I wouldn't say it's merely courtesy, but I would suppose it also encompasses that.

I'm not sure that matters much, though, and that's why I just defined it loosely. I'm more interested in establishing for myself whether the stuff that I find objective can be considered morality or not. If that requires a more in depth definition, then I'm open to that. But as of yet, I don't see the purpose.

Isn't it rather the case that one ought do what is right, even if that means not getting on with the other fellow? — Banno

I would suppose the "bake the cake" example answers that. Obviously you have to be "inconvenient" to the racists, in that case, in order to do "what is right". Everything in life is a tradeoff. But notice that you have to do that because they have a predisposition to not get along with someone else in the first place. Your action in this case would be a way to prevent that.

I think it's useless to go into certain common dilemmas. I'm not really that interested in discussing morality per se.

Your post is not about moral norms - it's about identity politics. — Wayfarer

My example is about identity politics, not my post. I merely used that as an example of an issue that can be easily solved through objective reasoning. It just so happened to be the one at the top of my head.

Unhappy is the default. If you do nothing, that's where you'll remain.

Not meaning to be a party pooper, but I really have a lot of trouble humoring propositions originated in effectively broken premises.

It seems to me that you're trying to conciliate your version of a deistic god, or maybe pantheistic, with the universe as we know it. While I'd consider those concepts of gods to be the most "compatible", I can't help but remain stuck on a few problems.

Basically, how I describe the deistic god is: pick the very first thing that existed, and slap the name god on it. Problem is, god was not really defined, and now it totally lacks meaning. It's just a name you attributed to the first thing that is currently known to science.

Your concept sounds maybe more pantheistic, more complex than the above, but it still seems to suffer from similar problems.

There is reality, and there is your perception of reality. Reality just is, and it's not flexible; it always is the way it is, no matter how it evolves, and no matter how you perceive it. Your perception of reality on the other hand is malleable, because you can't ever know everything there is to know about reality, and information you find about it may be flawed or even totally wrong. The best you can have (and science works with this in mind) is a model of reality that is close enough to reality itself that it works well enough in practice. If your model of reality is too flawed, you'll eventually be facing consequences (if you take your children to an exorcist instead of a doctor, and they end up dying).

This is also why science works in reverse: they don't try to prove things, they try to disprove them. You posit a hypothesis, and then try to blow holes in it. Put simply, if you can disprove it, then it's likely wrong; if not, then it's likely correct to the degree you understand it. In math they can prove things because math is absolute. 2+2 is always 4. And math is indeed something we came up with, but so far it seems to works quite flawlessly (to the best of my knowledge). Well, philosophically, 2+2 might be 22, or a pepin, but mathematically it's really always 4.

Con artists, advertisers, politicians, and many other people take advantage of our perception of reality in some way. Some in dishonest ways, some even unknowingly. The best you can do is investigate for yourself, and try to corroborate information, or find people who know more about the subject to do that for you (I rely on some youtubers) and give you back their assessment of it, and learn to detect whether they're being coherent or not (learn about fallacies, get a bit of an understanding of the scientific method and compare to pseudoscience (a synonym of fraud, if you ask me). There are probably other useful things to know, but I could only think of those).

Not many things can be proven to an absolute degree (though facts are facts), but everything that isn't real can be disproved to the point at which anyone defending it will only be stubbornly clinging to fallacies (the Argument From Ignorance, for example). Most stuff that is real or true can be easily backed up by at least an objective argument, or at least one piece of evidence. The only obstacle to how easy it is, is usually people who profit from, or have some vested interest in muddying the waters (and they usually resort to fallacies or sophisms all the way).

Some perhaps useful links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method