3RU7AL

in the exact same way you should never have to make a personal judgement about mathematics

everyone should be able to "do the math" and see the exact same answer

What's the square root of 4.  Is two the exact same answer as negative two?

Is non-Euclidean Geometry the exact same thing as Euclidean Geometry? 

Only things you can point at exist? 

Morality is not a part of existent reality. You cannot point to it, you cannot actualize it, you cannot demonstrate it.

Keyword JUDGEMENT.

"objective morality" doesn't have any room for "judgement calls"

You either know or you don’t.

Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."

so i can't have "objective morality" and also KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE ?

That’s not the same as calling the rules impractical, that judgement call is based off knowing.

because i'm trying to figure out

why it matters if morality is "objective"

in practical terms

Can’t have it both ways dude.

how do you "objectively" measure morality ?

With a moral compass.

• One should always respect the humanity in others
  
• One should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone
  
• Never treat a person as a means to an end.
  

Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."

So we've gone from a religious discussion to a philosophical discussion to a politics discussion and you wonder why we hate atheists in this forum.

 by choosing to be responsible for how we ought to behave

by the discernment of underlying principles

It exist outside the mind existing in the real world.

OBJECTIVE meaning: 1 : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions not influenced by feelings; 2 : existing outside of the mind existing in the real world 

because i'm trying to figure out

why it matters if morality is "objective"

in practical terms

It would mean morality is the same for everyone because it is objective.

I believe there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and consequently, there is a moral dimension of reality that exists objectively, rather than subjectively.

Most everyone considers mathematical knowledge to be objective knowledge, and I believe, and can logically argue, that moral knowledge is objective in much the same way that mathematical knowledge is objective.  There are many objective facts that are based on human nature and so I believe that morality is grounded in human nature and is therefore objective, and as mentioned above, I do not believe that one needs to invoke God to make the case.

The caveat being recognition that morality is a matter of human conduct, it's about how human beings "ought" to act, so if by "Objective Morality" we mean morality that would exist independently of human beings, then I think that is a meaningless question. To question objective morality independently of human beings is to pose the question in the context of a reality in which logic, science, morality, reasoning, questions and arguments don’t exist.  The simple objective fact is that human beings experience a reality that includes values, purposes, and meanings. The very idea that these and related concepts such as morality can be evaluated in some kind of contrived context that is independent of human beings is meaningless.

If we understand objective knowledge to be knowledge based on observation of the real world, as is the case with objective scientific or mathematical knowledge, then I think that moral knowledge is also arrived at by observation and can be considered objective.

i'm asking if "objective morality" can be applied to the real-world

Why are you asking me this?

If anybody here wants to debate the issue that Morality is Objective,  I'm your Huckleberry.

and I won't be invoking God in my argument.  

you're the one claiming morality is "objective"

And you’re the one conflating complexity with uselessness, are you asking a question or making a claim?

i want to know what is right and what is wrong

By projecting so much your basically claiming to already know.

I would have to say that prudential bargaining with an authoritarian God is a terrible basis for morality.

Obviously it's not cuz people of various religions live day to day and make moral choices all the time some of which you fucking agree with. Believe it or not most polytheistic religions don't even tell you what's moral or what's not, you basically are just supposed to worship the gods.

if "god's morality" is NOT "black & white" then how can it be a useful standard ?

What’s the point of asking me questions if you’re just gonna project everything I say?

If you cannot succeed with self moderation. You have very little hope going outside your sphere of influence.

But you lost your 3 debates. Proof Your logic does not connect.

It was Aristotle that said actual infinities couldn’t exist, so the idea has been around for quite some time.  Our best science regarding the subject matter, General Relativity and the resultant Standard Model of Cosmology, are a matter of scientific consensus, and both are quite explicit that an infinite universe contradicts theory.

So you would prefer their arguments be reduced to logical connectives?

Gold was a hedge against inflation. But we have high inflation and gold stocks dropped by 15%.

The valued of gold has dropped. Fortunately India has a robust IT, Pharmaceutical and medical practitioners to make it self reliant.

So it’s their  argument that still fails even though you accept the basic premise of their position.

You just need them to argue their case better.

Your lexographer buddies told you their dictionary definitions are just suggestions, the actual definition of a word is arbitrarily up to the person using the word.  

That’s the problem with the concept of infinity, I don’t think it can be said to be a valid mathematical concept, at least in the sense that when you apply mathematics to it, you get logically incoherent results. One of many examples is algebraic, infinity + infinity = infinity, subtract infinity from both sides of the equation and you get infinity = zero, which is nonsensical.  It’s a useful concept for referring to a cyclical function, but it really can’t be considered a number or ve ea valid mathematical object.

You can choose to follow it as your moral standard if you want

Atheist complain they don't like religion because the morals are black and white but when you talk about the morals not being black and white then they say gods are useless. So I really wish they'd make up their mind.

how do we know which laws are "moral" and which are "immoral" ?

Morality is a spectrum you can’t sum all laws into one.

atheism is what you have before you LEARN about a god and or gods and or the goddess and or goddesses 

that's my point here

you don't have to "justify" atheism

because it is where everyone starts

Nope.

The universe is everything so nothing exists outside of itself.

But one must consider whether the system is beneficial in the long term.

And me being a British minion, thinks that it is.

Large-scale communal violence took place before and after the subcontinent partition into two separate states

Was it these lexographers that told you a person can only use the definition of a word if the word describes them? 

If God is the creator of all things good then that means He created morality, it all starts with Him.

How did you determine that anything he created was good? What standard are you using to make that assessment?

Since you aren't an atheist either, how do you know what atheists believe?

You really don't get the whole definition of words thing?