tevinsolt:


If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

tpiah2:
Are we having this debate again? I addressed this on the other thread.

Are you people saying you approve of pharaoh killing the hebrew babies and likewise herod killing toddlers?

You make no sound about these examples but are constantly squawking like witches over verses you twist for your evil agenda?

Fear God

If you are killed first by the person you meant to kill, then take it as your destiny. The bible says you don't enter a strong man's house if you are not ready to die.

undercat:


This doesn't actually address the question.

thehomer:


What about the person who doesn't want to be a reflection of your God's being and character? Is such a person bound by that God's moral laws?

PastorAIO:


I never said that I thought killing of babies is immoral. However it is a generally held opinion. Furthermore, in many places in the bible Murder is condemned. Even though in just as many other places the bible condones murder.

It is a general opinion in societies around that world that taking a life is wrong. A)most people don't want to die so their lives would be taken against their will. B) It will cause immense suffering for their loved ones who will miss them. That's not good. C) Humans have an inborn instinct to protect the youngest of their species. to kill a baby would be violating this instinct. ......

tevinsolt:

One of the attribute we possess as humans is free will. God won't stop a person that wants to do things his/her own way, "God won't force anyone into heaven against their will".

tevinsolt:


If you don't think it's Immoral, then is it moral or are you just neutral? whatever view you hold on morality do you apply it across the board?

A) I don't think any living thing wants to die, but it happens either naturally or external influence?
B) why would a murderer care about that?
C) you would surprised how common abortion is. what about dead beat parents? lots of them abound among us.

tevinsolt:
Consider premise
2. By objective we mean independent of opinion, just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed.

voltron:
why all the long talk.. morality already exist without GOD

sinequanon:


The title says objective morality.

Why can't some folk read?

sinequanon:


No. This is incorrect.

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical abstraction.

An objective fact would be something that is falsifiable in nature.

If you said that all rabbits have a tail, your assertion could be tested for objectivity by searching for a tailless rabbit. If you were to succeed in your search, the assertion would be falsified. We wouldn't automatically say the creature is not a rabbit.

However, if I were to dig two holes and then dig two more holes such that two of them coincided, I would end up with three holes. What gets called into question is not the mathematical abstraction itself, but my application or interpretation of the mathematical abstraction, 2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 4 is not an objective observation about a "real world", but part of a method by which we are instructed to interpret the "physical" world. It cannot be falsified by the "physical" world.

Slightly more obscure examples happen in quantum physics. 2 + 2 = 4 was applied to electron states passing through two slits. The actual answer was not as expected. The answer is 3. What gives? Well, the method of counting electron states had to give to the non-falsifiable abstract standard. In QM, it is known as the Pauli exclusion principle.

Kay17:


But you need human beings to work out mathematics, right?

Following your thought pattern, that human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics; therefore having mystical mathematicians can mean mathematics is mystical!

sinequanon:


I used the word "abstract" to characterize the orphaning of science from its creators. I didn't use the word "mystical".

So that I know what you are getting at, can you explain how you would test if a bit of mathematics were "mystical" or not.

Kay17:

But you need human beings to work out mathematics, right?
Following your thought pattern, that human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics; therefore having "corrupt" mathematicians can mean mathematics is "corrupt"!

sinequanon:
@Kay17

So that I know what you are getting at, can you explain how you would test if a bit of mathematics were "mystical" or not.

Kay17:


I was trying to compare science with mathematics as pure concepts and with their respective practitioners. By the way, I am not really saying mathematics is mystical, I was only making an example.

But you need human beings to work out mathematics, right?
Following your thought pattern, that human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics; therefore having "corrupt" mathematicians can mean mathematics is "corrupt"!

sinequanon:


No. This is incorrect.

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical abstraction.

An objective fact would be something that is falsifiable in nature.

If you said that all rabbits have a tail, your assertion could be tested for objectivity by searching for a tailless rabbit. If you were to succeed in your search, the assertion would be falsified. We wouldn't automatically say the creature is not a rabbit.

However, if I were to dig two holes and then dig two more holes such that two of them coincided, I would end up with three holes. What gets called into question is not the mathematical abstraction itself, but my application or interpretation of the mathematical abstraction, 2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 4 is not an objective observation about a "real world", but part of a method by which we are instructed to interpret the "physical" world. It cannot be falsified by the "physical" world.

Slightly more obscure examples happen in quantum physics. 2 + 2 = 4 was applied to electron states passing through two slits. The actual answer was not as expected. The answer is 3. What gives? Well, the method of counting electron states had to give to the non-falsifiable abstract standard. In QM, it is known as the Pauli exclusion principle.

sinequanon:


You seemed to quote yourself, but I couldn't find the original. You appear to have switched from "mystical" to "corrupt".

"human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics" is not what I said, but, yes, "corrupt mathematicians" can mean "corrupt mathematics".

Mathematics is a body of incomplete systems which also have paradoxes. Pure mathematics can only be applied to a model of nature, it cannot be validated by nature. If you were to step forward and complain about König's paradox (out of the many paradoxes), for example, it simply isn't your call. Mathematicians decide which paradoxes to tolerate and which not to.

I should add that there is much less pressure for mathematics to be corrupt than there is for science. Ordinary people do not consume mathematics, so it is somewhat removed from the corrupting influence of popular patronage.

Kay17:
But of course like the scientists, there are mathematicians who decide what mathematics is, AND mathematics can be anything they want it to be, right?

thehomer:


Does this mean humans aren't bound by your God's moral laws?

PastorAIO:


My point is that my personal opinion on this matter has nothing to do with the conversation. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You are trying to defend your view of the bible but you've ended up talking gibberish.



A) Oh, I guess you think it's okay to kill people then, after all they are going to die one day.

B) the murder may care about the rest of his family but not about the guy himself. e.g.. victim and murderer may be brothers and the murderer doesn't want to upset the mother but killing his brother.

C) It doesn't mean that a deep instinct in us is not being violated.

sinequanon:


Yes. It is a consensus. But mathematics is a product. It has to serve the consumer, otherwise mathematicians would be out of business. What is important is that the consumer has faith in it, and that does not equate to "objectivity of mathematics".

Kay17:



I am wondering how deep down the abyss of absurdity you can fall into.

tevinsolt:

it perfectly does, of course there would be no consequence, and I'm sure we his creation wouldn't have any moral code to uphold. Everything is allowed.

Kay17:


Oh there is a consumer chain too?! And what if mathematicians said mathematics was science and the scientists said science was mathematics, that would be accurate too, right?

I am wondering how deep down the abyss of absurdity you can fall into.

Kay17:


But you need human beings to work out mathematics, right?

Following your thought pattern, that human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics; therefore having mystical mathematicians can mean mathematics is mystical!

PastorAIO:
I think 'Doing mathematics' can be full of human error. That doesn't mean that mathematics is itself inconsistent.

PastorAIO:
I don't think we create mathematics. We discover maths.

It should also be noted that Brady's construction of naive set theory opens the door to a revival of Frege-Russell logicism, which was widely held, even by Frege himself, to have been badly damaged by the Russell Paradox. If the Russell Contradiction does not spread, then there is no obvious reason why one should not take the view that naive set theory provides an adequate foundation for mathematics, and that naive set theory is reducible to logic via the naive comprehension schema. [size=16pt]The only change needed is a move to an inconsistency-tolerant logic.[/size] Even more radically, recently [size=16pt]Weber (2012) has taken the inconsistency to be a positive virtue[/size], since it enables us to settle several [size=16pt]questions that were left open by Cantor[/size], namely, that the well-ordering theorem and the axiom of choice are provable, and that the Continuum Hypothesis is false. This is invigorating new ground. Weber also showed something essential to this project, namely, that Cantor's Theorem continues to hold; that is, it does not depend on overly-strong logical principles which are contested by paraconsistentists. Retaining Cantor's Theorem is important in that different orders of infinity remain available in inconsistent set theory.

undercat:


The question was not whether God cares about us, but whether there are any consequences to his going against a moral law he has set, just as we get to go to hell for breaking moral laws.

tevinsolt:
A God that would go against his moral codes, and punish his creations is a tyrant.

PastorAIO:


Bingo!!!