logicae

I still don't see how this is a presupposition. Is your statement a presupposition? And if so, is your statement then false?

Yes, and an idea is something we think. There are bad ideas, good ideas, right ideas, and wrong ideas. To say an idea does not reflect "conditions that necessarily are" is an idea itself. If I accept this idea of yours, I must also accept that this idea is "based on conditions one believes ought to be, not conditions that necessarily are" and so your idea does not reflect reality. It is contradictory to start with. 

Ideas, however, are based on reality. What we observe informs our ideas and, though our observations are not perfect, we can come to an understanding of the truth by these observations. All our knowledge is based on this and all statements (including yours) uses this as foundation.

So our existence must be true based on observation of our existence, otherwise we could not be observing our existence in the first place.

To Truth!

-logicae

I don't see how. Why must this idea be a presumption?

To Truth!

-logicae

Good question.

Perhaps all we can know about the individual is that we are. But certainly it is sacred.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? Say if no evidence was found at the scene of a murder, would you then dismiss it saying, "Well there is no evidence so nobody did it."  Also how can you be so sure there is no evidence? Perhaps you are not looking in the right place.

Because?

Why is unfalsifiable? How so?

Indeed, it is bewildering, but it questions being at its core. I think we take things (this time quite literally) for granted and that nothing challenges that. What do you suppose is the solution to the question of being? Why it is and not isn't?

It drives me crazy to imagine nonexistence. It seems to me wrong to not exist, but that indicates that being is right. Right is a truth claim and so I am left with the assumption that being is truth itself. I would like to get to know this being better, who's truth I love so dearly.

Let me know your thoughts.

To Truth!

-logicae

Thanks for your post. You make two claims. First that no property could be ascribed to nothing and second that it is unimportant. I think the first is more of a truism, as only things have properties (no things having no properties). Why do you think the question of being is unimportant?

To Truth!

-logicae

Thus empty physical space is not a true vacuum. When I use the term "vacuum" I mean no-thing or actually empty space.

You seem very frank my friend. Glad to have a thinker of your caliber. How would we know if all is pointless? It it seems there are plenty of points to be made.

To Truth!

-logicae

Empty Physical Space? Is that something?

Depends what you mean by a vacuum.  A true vacuum has nothing, but if you mean a vacuum with something else in it, then it is something indeed.

I appreciate it brother. May you go as far as your kindness.

To Truth!

-logicae

What do you think we are keeping an eye on? I think there are many doing the same, at least many of us. But why must we study the past and future?

What do you mean?

Interesting, I do agree it is hard to image actuality. But nothing is as nothing does. Nothing is simply that which rocks dream about. Nothing.

It could be hard if you take reality for granted, but it seems we have the unique capacity to think about things that do not exist and also the absence of things that already exist (This forum could not have been here for example).

To Truth!

-logicae

Does that make you curious? If it is not for us to know. I suppose you could say it is not important, but I cannot fathom how one could discount the very being that all things rely on. If we could know what that is, it would be beyond all human knowledge, an answer for why we are here.

To Truth!

-logicae

I don't quite understand the question. If morality is subject to change, then it is subjective. Its moral worth also is subjective since it is subject to change also. This means that ultimate worth cannot be achieved given the ever changing nature of worth as presented by subjectivity. 

Perhaps, and so here we are! Glad to hear from you.

To Truth!

-logicae

What I mean is that subjectivity is completely separate from objectivity. This means that if worth (or morality) is only subject to matters of subjectivity, then it is not objective. 

It seems so. Perhaps then rephrased: "Nothing of ultimate worth matters." This means the subjective worth is meaningless without objective backing and so can exist. 

To Truth!

-logicae

Why? Why at all? Perhaps it behooves you to think I am crazy, but the simple matter that subject, action, or object can even be mentioned brings serious issues into play. Why things are at all? Such is to be assumed because that is all that we are given and ourselves also already actualized. 

Am I insane? I do not mind a response to that question. I cannot fathom how things are and so can be comprehended. Ser means "to be" in Spanish. What I want to know is what is behind "ser" or being itself. All other things depend on that reality, but why "ser" at all? We can certainly imagine a lack of being, but little is left to clue us in to question of being. What is this ultimate reality like? 

It is quite amusing to see great  battles fought, lives lived, and debates had on such minuscule of subjects when compared to this question. I am interested in the response, though I do not expect much,  I am crazy after all. 

To Truth!

-logicae

"Your question is a false dichotomy ("but if I then told you that 2 + 2 = 5 what would you think? Would you simply say I was going against popular opinion or against reality?").I would not say either one of those statements.  I would simply ask you to explain."

Indeed, then perhaps that's where we should part. Explanation is not needed here if we cannot find common ground in basic mathematical truths such as 2+2=4. That is why I start with that question, to see if you are truly willing to find the truth.

Though this conversation ends, I will say one final thing: That definitions, though useful to confuse or clarify, can only help one so far. 

May you go far, 

To Truth!

-logicae

Not so, because numbers are not associated with units like apples or variables until you do so (as you did above). This is besides the point. Notice I did not add anything extra to 2+2 = 5. Can you answer the question I asked? Otherwise I'm afraid we cannot continue. 

To Truth!

-logicae

Hello! Thought I might drop in and a good question indeed. 

I would like to answer the question like this: First we have a Big WHY for everything. We ask this question about everything, from the daily decisions we make, up to the origins of ourselves and the universe itself. In order to answer that most important why about the universe as a whole you must assess the options at hand: 

1 Nothing actually exists.

2 Something does exist (the universe) but it always was.

3 Something does exist and it began (universe began)

a. it came from nothing.

b. it came from something beyond itself.

This must be answered first because it decides why we look towards an outside source instead of a system of naturalism (material only).

First we know that, since we are able to observe things, existence is real. This means option 1 can't be true. 

Second, option two brings up the absurdity of the infinite paradox (which underlines the impossibility of an infinite universe) and further is negated by the observable contingency of the universe (meaning that the universe is always seeking a cause for itself).  

Thirdly, option three arrives at the pinnacle of philosophic reasoning and current modern scientific understanding (that is to say that we know the universe began to exists through the experiment of the big bang and deductive reasoning dating back centuries). Sub-point a makes no sense of the universe, acting as though it appeared as though magically, while sub-point b declares that a source beyond the universe is necessary. 

That is where we begin, seeing no other option we must then ask the question what is this cause? 

That's where my favorite argument for God's existence comes into play:

KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) It is formulated similar to this: 

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Premise 2: The universe began to Exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

The key to remember here is that if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. Also, though the Kalam does not point out God directly, it does show a creator is necessary, like if someones points out that an artist is necessary for a painting (the universe is the painting). We can explore the attributes of this creator, leading the well known and timeless God of theism. here is a link to my debates on the Kalam where I outline and explore each attribute in detail if you are curious: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1287/it-takes-more-faith-to-be-an-atheist

I will try and answer the rest of your questions now: 

-The Kalam is my favorite argument for God because it follows an easy to understand structure and gets right to the point. 

-The main objections I get now include a misunderstanding of the necessity of God and also a misunderstanding of who God is. To deal with these two points I must first make clear that God, the simplest and most concise definition, is the creator or cause of the universe (this is key because this is the most important thing we can know of him, like the painting of a painter). Everything else is more of a wash. To the misunderstanding of God's necessity: You must first get them to recognize a cause of the universe, then have them understand how some things are necessary (like the three-ness of a three sided triangle) and since the universe is not necessary, the cause of it (God) must be, else it would not exist. 

To Truth!

-logicae

I apologize if the question seems trivial, because it points to an important end. 

"It's true by definition" "2" is rigorously defined and there is a broad consensus among initiates of the occult order of "mathematics" that if you double it, then you get "4"

Yes true, that is the way we understand it, but if I then told you that 2+2 = 5 what would you think? Would you simply say I was going against popular opinion or against reality?

To Truth!

-logicae

I am wondering if you are a naturalist, as many of your statements assume everything is material. 

Beyond that I will see what I can do. Do stop me if you detect bias of opinion creeping in. 

"Here's a question: why is 2+2=4?"

Perhaps you didn't see where I was going with this question. Then I ask the same for you: Why is 2+2 = 4? This is the only way you can understand what is objective or what is true regardless of opinion.

To Truth!

-logicae

Sorry you think that way, in order to find the answer you seek, at least I hope you do, you need to understand objectivity. If you are here merely blinded by a bias of some sort, then I can't help you. 

Regardless, have a good new year!

To Truth!

-logicae

Good question, 

To answer that we need to know where objectivity comes from. 

Here's a question: why is 2+2=4?

To Truth!

-logicae

Hello, hey I'm all for semantics, but a forum by definition is a place that people exchange information. I'm looking for information on Objective Morality, but it's ok if you disagree (you can still participate). If you are not interested you can look elsewhere for something to do.

To Truth!

-logicae

No hard feelings man ;), 

To Truth!

-logicae

I will press F: F

Anyway welcome to the forum! To answer your question this forum sets out to explore the natural law or moral law as philosphers such as Thomas Aquinas have acknowledged. 

Thanks for the question, 

To Truth!

-logicae

Hello, remember that this forum is not a debate for or against objectivity. Once more it is a discussion about the proofs for objectivity. 

Thanks for the comment though, 

To truth!

-logicae

Hey guys! *This post is not for debating for and against objective morality* Rather I would like to challenge everyone to think and search for the evidence of objective morality. The goal I think is to understand what we currently know and take for granted.

I will start us off with what I know: 

First and foremost is the world's tendency towards a moral law. Maybe it is harder for us to see directly, but everything we do is guided by a reasoning of "do or ought not do." It is easily seen when we say "should I", as you do when you make the decision to eat breakfast or go to work. This means we have an evaluation before we make an act. We obviously don't see these type of premeditation in animals (try keeping a hungry chicken from food for example XD), which points us to something else special for us. 

Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies. To be objectively moral means to have an objective standard by which you measure things to. When you are cut in line, or are cheated, beaten etc, we always expect the person hurting us to understand the wrongness of what he did, appealing to a common standard (which is why we want him punished). This doesn't mean that we have to follow this standard, but that we both see it. We don't expect these same standards of animals (try telling a mosquito to stop sucking blood ;), but instead expect it of those around us.

This is big, because just as we have an innate untaught sense to eat, this standard guides us beyond the likes of animals, explaining why people from all cultures and backgrounds all point to murder and atrocities such as Hitler's exterminations as objectively wrong.

(once more I only ask for brain storming on the topic of objective morality not a debate on it ;)

Please know it that I do not want a search from the perspective of a moral creator (though surly it leads it it), instead I ask we use our combined minds to reveal what we can know by observation.

I would love to see more examples of how the moral law affects our lives or how we would be without morality. These two things certainly bring us to understand how the moral law exists.