Philosophim

Good to see you again Ucarr! Great write up, let me see if I can justifiably answer your points. This is the one area that I think you misinterpret fr...

My point is that's a gross misunderstanding of the text and quite frankly, stupid. If someone holds that argument don't even waste your time.

Hi EricH, I wanted to say first of all I love your light hearted style of posting, much appreciated. :) I agree with this. This is a common mistake am...

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using. I'm noting that 'immutable' in this sense is the fact of the eternal nature...

My understanding again is this is meant to convey that God cannot be created or destroyed. God always was, and always will be.

No worry, that's just a misinterpretation of prose to mean God has always existed, or that his standard of good and plan have been known since the beg...

Your second premise contradicts your first. If God created something, then that something came from God, not nothing. We can still hold C1, but that o...

No, I'm noting that C involves A, but they are not the same thing. You're the one who introduced A, not me. :) The scope captures everything causally ...

I am talking about the scope of causality that encompasses all things. You cannot talk about the totality of call causes without the totality of all e...

If I understand this correctly, I think the only problem you have is with the idea that an infinite regress of causality has no cause for its being. W...

Bye Egg. Keep working on English and logic, you'll improve with time.

You don't think anyone who's lived has ever asked, "Should I be alive?" People commit suicide all the time Egg. Its a viable question of morality that...

Not a worry, we'll tackle it that way then. Correct, we're assuming there is an objective morality, but we aren't asserting there actually is one. Thi...

Its just a definition. And its that the term is defined as "What should be." I'll ask again, do you have another definition of good? If you have an is...

I'm still not seeing this and your answers are becoming shorter and shorter. There is no reason, no quotes, and no further explanation behind this sta...

I'm starting with the definition that good = 'what should be'. Like in the dictionary. Do you have another definition of good? Then I ask, "Should not...

I don't see how that is. If good = what should be then bad = what shouldn't be. Thus there should be some states of existence that are more preferenti...

I'll try one more time just in case you didn't understand. I don't use any claim in this OP that what ought to be is because it is. Please point out w...

You may not be aware of this, but the first person to start using derogatory remarks as an argument is the person who has lost the argument and is hav...

The main problem is that congress is also under the control of Republicans. The one failure of the founders was to not realize that congress actually ...

I agree. Most things require both context, and the result. I believe that a person can only make a decision based on what they know, and with a high c...

Correct. Its both a blessing a curse that we use the same words for different contexts, and in each context they have a different meaning. Basically w...

1. My previous post was an exploration, not a proof. It is a different approach then what I've presented here and my views have changed. Presenting fe...

You came to an older post that was not trying to prove a point but explore a hypothetical and use that against my newer post which does not do this? I...

And absolutely nothing to say after having much to say prior? We moved from existence as abstract into quantity and now have a means of measuring part...

If you didn't want to read it, that's fine. Have a good one Relativist.

I don't get how you draw that from my last reply, but if you're not interested in continuing the discussion, have a nice day.

Feel free to move onto my next post where I would indeed say that nothingness is zero. I actually introduce a method to quantify existence and compare...

We seem to be going round and round on this one Bob. :) You didn't need to introduce a new set, as everything was in the U1 and U2 sets. But I'm not i...

You're close. The OP notes that if there is an objective morality, then the only answer which isn't a contradiction is that there should be existence....

Its about states of existence. As a very simple example imagine a state of existence where someone is murdered, vs where they are not murdered. The go...

Oh, I didn't realize there was a misunderstanding. The link you went to was a reference I posted earlier to detail the logic that extends from the not...

Bad is what should not exist. By virtue of good things existing, there is a state of being that would be a possible negation of that good existence, a...

Have you read the entirety of the second post? Do you understand the example of atoms versus molecules that I put forward?

No, should would denote a more positive state of existence. But for there to be a more positive state of existence, it must be at its base that existe...

Then I have misunderstood. First, I've already told you this is not a proof that an objective morality exists. This is IF an objective morality exists...

"Should" does not mean "does". If what is bad exists, it should not exist. If what is good does not exist, it should exist. Does that address your iss...

I'm a little lost. Good is defined as what should be, bad is defined as what shouldn't be.

I encourage you to review several posts back where I agreed with your points 1 and 2 and laid out that your conclusion did not not make sense. I'll be...

I have several times noted that 'should' does not involve beings. If you are saying it does, and I'm presenting the entire argument that it does not, ...

Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist. This is not an argument against the existence of an objective morality. A red wavelength o...

And I presented to you a counter that you have not fully addressed. So until then, my point stands.

Alright, that's one part, but you didn't provide your own definition. First, I'm not defining good and bad as you think I am. Good - What should be Ba...

That didn't answer the question. If you don't give an answer to that question, then that means mine has every reason to stand.

I think that's fine. What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative?

That's why we're careful here in our definitions. Is good what should be, and is bad what shouldn't be at its very basic? Do you feel we've reached an...

And we agree! True. A subjective morality is merely opinion though while and objective morality would be a reasoned fact. If you're starving without a...

Considering the first cause would be the first part of causality, A -> B, isn't A part of the set of causality? But what I'm doing is looking at the e...

It's merely an occasion sentence. Further morality also measures what is bad too. And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labe...

The problem with this statement is that you haven't just declared that an objective morality cannot exist. This statement declares that nothing object...