Under Divine Command theory whatever god says is moral, is objectively moral and not arbitrary by definition. You have ignored the objectivity of gods law in your counter-argument but Divine Command theory depends entirely on this premiss as part of its argument. Even if we humans cannot determine whats objective, an objective morality would still exist under divine command theory.

Not sure I can agree with you there. Art can be dark, or abstract or sad, not “above” us at all. Humour can be self deprecating, or ironic, or clever...things I wouldnt consider “below” us.
You stated that like a dichotomy aa well, like art and humour are two sides of the same coin but Id say they pretty freely intermingle. Art can be funny, funny can be art. Sometimes both at the same time.
Certainly what you observe is true of some humour and art though.

Maybe you are a determinist after all, if you cannot deny the logic of determinism.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “inherent in some initial specific properties”? You are making an analogy to DNA, so do you mean there was some kind of blueprint, the way we have our genetic blueprints in our DNA?

Well Im not getting my information from the internet, but from a university degree. Ive attended academia and learned from philosophy professors. Im just relaying what I learned there. Like I said, what weight that holds is your prerogative. Im not making an appeal to academic authority, just relating what it says on the matter.
The semantic game im referring to in a nutshell:
Theist “do you believe in god”
Atheist “no”
Theist “so you dont think god exists, right?
Atheist “right”
Theist “ah, so you believe no god exists. You are a believer, we’re the same, operating on faith”
Atheist “oh, I see what you did there. No, I lack a belief in god, lacking belief in something isn't itself a believe.”

Christian apologists used the semantics of the words thinking, knowing, believing etc to create a false equivalence between atheism and theism. Thats how the usage evolved, as part of the ongoing debate in academia.
Obviously there is more to it, hard and soft atheism, hard and soft agnosticism, and many different arguments on all sides, but thats the gist of that particular reference I made.

So I wonder why they havent bitten. Maybe the subject just isnt that philosophically rich, there is less space for philosophy to operate when the subject matter either has very little grey area (like math or most science) or way too much grey area (like music or art with a huge subjective component).

The change in usage in philosophical academia is due to the evolving argumentation in philosophy. The usage changes as new words come into play (like agnosticism) and in response to new arguments being made. In the case of atheism and the distinction of lacking belief rather than believing no god exists etc etc became necessary when Christian apologetics began using semantic games as part of their arguments. (Concerning belief)
Thats not even a difficult question to answer for anyone whose studied the arguments in academia. One is free to not use the academic usage of course but if the academic usage is what we are talking about then what Ive said on the subject is accurate.

You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing. And Ironic...the faithful arguing in bad faith. Lol, why is it that those who think they have the moral high ground never seem to demonstrate it?
I dont think hes a troll, I think he is a liar, and I dont buy his insincere politeness either. Completely Dishonest.

↪DingoJones ha, you are very perceptive, although I said indication, not reason. Anyway, a rather good reason for philosophy being dead is the complete lack of music in works of philosophy, now this is a very good reason, indeed. Humour, maybe we can do without, but music, as well as poetry, we cannot. — Pussycat

Well, I didn't quote you as saying “reason” :wink:

Those things you mentioned may be missing from philosophy, but wouldnt that mean philosophy never lived at all rather died?
Also, there is no reason philosophy cannot be applied to those things is there? So are you talking about the limits philosophy, or philosophers?

You said lack of philosophy on humour was “yet another” reason philosophy is dead. What are the other reasons?

In what way is it dead?

Its such a difficult thing to have knowledge about because laughter is involuntary. Whatever processes humour triggers to cause laughter or amusement are largely sub-conscious, maybe entirely. Even comedians, our experts on humour have only a tentative grasp on what makes people laugh and they do that mostly through trial and error.
I think your comparison to art is apt. Good comedy is an art form. I also agree that there are objective elements, common traits to all humour, or certain kinds of humour at least. Some things get a laugh out of just about anyone. Its just very hard to parse out exactly what those traits are.

Ok, fair enough, youre right you didnt say there must be a god.
However, referring to a higher power is the same fallacy...well ok, I guess it depends on what you mean by “higher power”. That usually implies a sentience or being, but what did you have in mind?

Oit really seems to me you are not reading me carefully or paying attention to the context. He said, originally to me that — Coben

No, I think that the confusion is in how I interjected. I wasnt arguing against Frank with you as a proxy, I just picked up on what you said in your other conversation and was interested in discussing it with you.

Get it? he is talking about a subjective feeling of importance he attaches to a word. I argued, in relation to his subjective not liking a term being used for him, that many theists would probably have strong reactions to the word theist. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. — Coben

Ya, and they’d be wrong, like I said...

I know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me. — Coben

Ok, it just didnt seem like it from what you said. You said the label was wrong in that context after all so I dont feel like I was making a terrible error. Anyway, ok, understood.

The label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting. — Coben

Agnostic and atheist are not the same thing, the former is a position in relation to belief in god and the latter is a position about knowledge of god. So it makes no sense to say one is more accurate than the other.

Anyway, if you arent interested then you arent interested. Enjoy the rest of your day, or night depending on where you are.

There may be a "God" but none of the current religions are right. There must be a higher power or something that we do not understand because there is no explanation how energy can come from "nothing." — Nils123

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we have no explanation doesnt mean you can just make one up, you have to actually explain why god is the best explanation.
Since the rest of what you say follows from the quoted statement, I think your argument fails.

I didn't say it was too broad, just that Christians would find it too broad. I doubt vast majority would ever identify first as a theist and see if the other wanted clarification. Even Christian is too broad for many: they'll want to get in which large category, like Protestant, and then down into their specific church. Being merely a theist could still be really quite seriously the wrong thing to be given which kind. — Coben

That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. (Although, it might mean it doesnt fully describe them). If a Christian thinks that they are not a theist, that's a failure of understanding on their part.

He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred. — Coben

You were telling him to “resist”, I took that to mean you agreed the label didnt include him. So I was directing those questions at you, not him.

I think most Christians, for example, would find theist way too broad. They'd want to get specific fast. — Coben

A Christian is a type of theist, its not “too broad” a description its a broad description. The next question would be “what kind of theist are you?” To which the answer would be be “Christian”, and of course “what kind of Christian?” And so on.

I would resist their labeling you that way. I don't think they get to label you, nor do I think they have any ground to insist you label yourself that way. The term covers meanings that do not fit the same person. Resist. — Coben

Resist what? Why? These are just categories that ease communication. You are a human...why dont you resist that label? Its the same thing.
So too with the word “atheist”, its a broad label that describes someone who lacks a belief in god. The next questions would be “what kind of atheist?” To which the answer might be any number of sub categories such as anti-theist or agnostic. Someone may fall under the broad “atheist” and none of the sub categories and thats fine too, just like a theist who believes in god but nothing much more than that wouldnt fall under the christian or Jewish sub categories.
If you do not want to be under a certain category, there must be a reason why you do not belong there...its not enough to just not agree with other people in that category about other things (for example, not wanting to be called an “atheist” because of all the angry, disrespectful, religion trashing atheists one has met.)

Im under the impression they are about logical paradoxes. Connecting them to mathematics is an extrapolation imo.

What would satisfy the abstract mankind? — Congau

It would function the same way anything else is decided/judged by a collective. With morality the varied judgements within the group may differ on various points, but there will be collective agreement on certain clear acts of morality/immorality. That is why Ive used easily contrasted acts, such as mass murder and working at a soup kitchen once or twice. It should be easy to see the imbalance there. Do you think that the balance is unclear in that example?
Before you mention individual dissent again, remember im talking about a collective, society in general. The small portion of whacky dissenters do not represent the larger body of moral judgement.

Yes, people reach agreements, individuals, that is. — Congau

Groups of people (individuals) reach agreements too. They even do that if not every individual within the group agrees to it or about it.

If you are only talking about how we morally judge people, it’s a rather trivial point. Sure, I could say, this guy has done a lot of bad things but also a lot of good, so he’s moral worth is about medium. — Congau

Yes, exactly. Its much more difficult to determine all the different, exact points on the moral spectrum as you are pointing out, but for the purposes of the OP we do not need to. We just need to operate from the premiss that there IS a spectrum. Again, this is why I used such easily contrasted examples, to show that there is a spectrum. Thats all my question requires.

No, the principle of paying off moral debt doesn’t make sense even to start with, and the reason is what I have been trying to convey: There is no correspondence between the original transgression and the presumed reimbursement. — Congau

Yes there is, it corresponds to whatever satisfies as reimbursement. This would be true even if I was talking about the individual, which Im not.

Whatever is paid back, most be paid back in kind, or else it just isn’t real. If you steal a hundred dollars, you can pay back a hundred dollars and at least there is some logical correspondence between crime and compensation. But when paying back in an unconvertible currency so to speak, there’s no way to reach satisfaction. — Congau

Thats just not true, people reach satisfaction over moral transgressions all the time. They do so regardless of this strict mathematical calculation you claim must be present. The currency may seem unconvertible to you but people get by just fine without it.

You seem to imply in your argumentation that you can morally commit any immoral act as long as you pay back somehow, and that it is as if the bad thing you did never happened. No, what was bad remains bad. If you kill someone’s child and later save the world, that child will still be gone. — Congau

Its not that it never happened, or that reality (the child being gone) would change somehow, its about the moral measure of that person. The bad actions are still bad and the good actions still good as you say, but Im not asking whether the bad actions are considered good somehow based on good action. im asking about the balance, about how the good and bad measure against each other.
We dont judge someones moral worth on whether they’ve did 1 good thing or 1 bad thing, we take account of both and weigh them against one another. I dont think thats controversial.

I dont think so. Zeno was making entirely different points with what you are referencing. He did not have anything like the quantum level in mind, but rather logic.
I think you are reading into Zeno too much to draw that conclusion, and resemblance to quantum mechanics is superficial and coincidental.

There is an interesting application of this idea with regards to punishment. We could consider punishment for past actions, like a jail sentence, a way of repaying a moral debt. You have incurred a debt by taking away someone's rights in some way, and now you pay for that by giving up some of your rights. Thus, the balance is re-established, albeit with everyone worse off. — Echarmion

Sure, thats why they say former prisoners have payed their debt to society. I had in mind a moral sense of it though, but yes in principal its the same idea.

People here are suggesting that doing right all your life doesn't entitle you to suddenly murder anyone. True. — Artemis

What if you steal a pack of gum, but spend the rest of your life doing nothing but right to make up for it? Do we forgive the stolen pack of gum?

But as Pfhorrest suggests, this is probably more due to our relative certainty that the loved one will not continue bad acts and the lesser known person might. — Artemis

Sure, there would be instances where thats the case but Im asking about those circumstances where thats not the case, where its a member of society judged by the rest of society.

I think doing good things to "make up" for a bad deed aren't thus so much a way to eradicate "debt" as much as a way to prove regret, remorse, and reformation. — Artemis

Ok, so a few questions here. Is that in all cases, that you can never “make up” for a bad deed? (You steal a pack of gum, then replace the pack of gum plus work the store for free for a few weeks).
Does “making up” actually prove regret or remorse (morally speaking)? It seems like you could have other motivations, selfish or immoral ones.

Objective/subjective is irrelevant. However you think of morality or the basis of morality doesnt matter, im asking about what those judgements would be.
You are still responding as though “B” is a person, but Ive already told you what “B” is. The specific judgements for what good compensates for what bad is getting ahead of the question. Does the principal of paying off moral debt this way make sense to start with? If we then determine that its sound in principal then we can talk about what kind of trade-offs make the most sense. (And subjective/objective basis of morality still doesnt matter).

Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.

The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...

Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)

But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic. — Monist

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Just because you can call it fallacious, or claim you do not believe in logic does not make it so. These are just empty, meaningless words and positions you are offering.
Things make sense, things happen in certain ways, there is a consistency to reality and that doesnt change just because you say it does. (Edited a grammar error.)
Anyway, like I said once you have resorted to nonsense as your argument you have checked out of the conversation.

My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.

You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.

Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE. — Monist

If you are not interested in making sense then there is nothing more to say. If you are going to offer nonsense as a an argument, then you have ended the discussion.

...the act of doubting requires existence. Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesnt exist.

But to talk about debt and pay back, both creditor and debtor need to be identical, i.e. if A harms B, A must later benefit B (and not C or D) — Congau

B would be the “we” I mentioned in my OP. This is about humans judging humans.

If by “unshakable” you mean certain, you can only be certain of one thing, you own existence. Its Decarte.
You can doubt the nature of your existence but not that you exist. “I think therefore I am.”
If by “unshakable” you mean something other than certainty then why would you want to have unshakable belief in anything? You should always be open to changing your belief if given better evidence or better reasoning. Unshakable belief is the basis for delusion, self deception and fanaticism.

Ok, well first of all you are confusing atheists with cosmologist and theoretical physicists. This plus your use of “you lot” in reference to atheists makes me think you arent being totally honest about being an atheist. What would Jesus say?
Second, your argument relies on 2) very heavily, and I dont think it supports the weight.

2. The existence of something implies an innate potential for something to exist. If there is no innate potential for something to exist, nothing can exist. — Randy333

Something that exists cannot have an “innate” potential to exist, it already exists. A balloon doesnt have the “innate” potential to be a balloon, it IS a balloon.

Debate, or at least discussion (which *gasp* might include someone disagreeing with you) is what this forum is for.

Well come on, you’ve offered no good reasons to believe any if that is true. Do you have evidence, or at least a good argument as to why the universe even has a mind?
Im sorry, but what you have posted is a claim with no support, no argument. Its very close to the description offered in Starwars as a description of the force. You’ve just added a god-prefix, presumably to keep in housed in the familiar framework of religious terminology. What are you even offering for discussion here?

You’ve been watching too much Starwars. Your descriptor is completely unnecessary. Redundant. There is just the universe and the stuff in it. No magic needed.

Its hardly a “wild goose chase”. I referenced the last post I made, if you cannot follow the discussion one post past, I dont know what to tell you. You dont seem to be paying attention to what Im saying...i mean, you responded to a quote of mine and then asked me if that was the quote you didnt respond too. When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass.

Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to? — god must be atheist

Well no, that is the paragraph you DID respond to. Lol
You just quoted the exact same paragraph you already did.

But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. — god must be atheist

Right, Im didnt suggest you were advocating it. You were the one that made the point about moral axioms “after the morals have been solidified” as “justification for the morals”, and I was saying thats true some of the time but not all of the time. I used the term “ad hoc”, which wasnt the best way to describe what you were saying so Ill take the blame for the confusion on this part.

In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems. — god must be atheist

Yes, this is where we disagree....although the wording has changed to “acceptable” to society instead of whats good for society.
Just so we are clear, which do you mean?

I think thats true some of the time, that moral axioms are just ad hoc rationalisations, but thats not true of all moral systems. Having an ad hoc justification is an error in logic, a fallacy. Thats not the only way people come to moral stances or adopt moral systems, and its not the basis for all morality.
Also, why did you only respond to the middle paragraph of my last post? That comes off as bad faith engagement so if there is another reason Id like to hear what it is.

You said this:

No, I don't agree that morality starts with axioms and definitions and categorical truths. Instead, I am convinced that the categorical truths follow the accepted moral behaviour, and that is based strictly on what is positive for society, or else for positive for segments of society. — god must be atheist

I read that as morality is “based strictly” on whats good for society. If thats wrong, please explain what else you mean by that.
Thats what law is for, whats good for the society. In the rest of your post you describe a distinction, which I accept, between law and morality but in your argument you are not making much distinction at all.
In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands.
So I think where we disagree is what the best basis for morality is. I dont think we should consider whats best for society as morality because there are so many examples of the law being wrong, ignorant and/or batshit crazy. I think when those of us that figured out slavery Is awful and immoral we weren't just changing whats accepted, we were getting it right. (Morally speaking).
You disagree, right?

I think you are conflating law and morality and culture together. Anyway, not much point in continuing if you cannot talk about these explanations you have, we will keep hitting a wall.

Morality doesnt have to be a arbitrary, transforming quagmire. It depends on what its based upon, what axioms you are operating from.
If morality is about human suffering, then slavery is clearly not moral. If morality is about doing unto others as you would have them do to you, then slavery again is wrong. It depends on what morality is based on, then you can operate from that to determine whats moral in a non-arbitrary, transforming way.
So now youre going to shift the burden of “transformability” of morality to those axioms, fair enough. But I dont think those are arbitrary (correct me on using that term if thats not what you meant by “complete transformability”) either, I think we determine the basis for morality the same way we do for everything else. What makes sense as a basis? What is effective as a basis? Those questions have answers that are not arbitrary, at least not in any sense that science or other things we don’t think of as arbitrary wouldnt also be.
So maybe a person doesnt have any basis or axioms for their morality, but I dont think its accurate to call that an arbitrary or completely transformable morality. I would describe that as not having morality, as what is moral/immoral has no meaning anymore. It would just be whatever the person feels like doing whether it makes sense or not. As soon as a person wants to make sense, they have rules to follow, a non-arbitrary basis.

Ok, gotchya.

Then you should pay more attention, a clear question (a few actually) was asked, in simple english. My second analogy was better than my first attempt I thought. Better illustrated the point Im making.