beyond Objective and Subjective: God.

[Camicon]

I was not using conceptualize in the manner that you seem to be, because Soldati did not. Yes, I am aware that your brain needs to process information about the properties of a puck if you want to use it, things like weight and elasticity. I don't need to consider the idea of a puck in order to use it.

well thats reflecting on the puck, not conceptualizing it.
don't agree to use incorrect words without calling attention to it, It lets the other person get away with equivocation.

Then jump on Soldati's back. He introduced the word to the conversation. I used it in my reply so he would know which specific part of the post I was responding to.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

[Twilight Imperium]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

I can imagine such a being too. Fortunately, reality is not bound by the whims of its inhabitants.

[Camicon]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

Evil, unjustness, stupidity, and power, are all social constructs. They do not have objective limits.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

Evil, unjustness, stupidity, and power, are all social constructs. They do not have objective limits.

So, why are we to take your opinions as fact? Why are we to simply call everything a social contruct? You can, I think you have, extended this to all idea.

[Sociobiology]

well thats reflecting on the puck, not conceptualizing it.
don't agree to use incorrect words without calling attention to it, It lets the other person get away with equivocation.

Then jump on Soldati's back.

I did.

He introduced the word to the conversation. I used it in my reply so he would know which specific part of the post I was responding to.

but you also used his use of the word, which is wrong, regardless of whether he did it first.

[Twilight Imperium]

Evil, unjustness, stupidity, and power, are all social constructs. They do not have objective limits.

So, why are we to take your opinions as fact? Why are we to simply call everything a social contruct? You can, I think you have, extended this to all idea.

Well, the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place wasn't observation of the natural world. You can't go out and mine a vein of unjustness, or look at evil particles under a microscope. Therefore, they came from somewhere else. The most likely candidate is a social construction.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So, why are we to take your opinions as fact? Why are we to simply call everything a social contruct? You can, I think you have, extended this to all idea.

Well, the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place wasn't observation of the natural world. You can't go out and mine a vein of unjustness, or look at evil particles under a microscope. Therefore, they came from somewhere else. The most likely candidate is a social construction.

Or they can come from objective principles of "the good", "the fair", etc.


Power, in this context, can't even be construed as 'a social construct', tell people that a explosion of a bomb which levelled their house is merely a social construct.

[Sociobiology]

Well, the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place wasn't observation of the natural world. You can't go out and mine a vein of unjustness, or look at evil particles under a microscope. Therefore, they came from somewhere else. The most likely candidate is a social construction.

Or they can come from objective principles of "the good", "the fair", etc.

there are no objective principles of either, there are instinctual concepts of fairness and goodness, but not objective ones.

a social construct is something that exists only to the extent that people behave as if it does.

a rock is not a social construct

justice is a social construct.

rain is not a social construct.

good and evil are social constructs.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Or they can come from objective principles of "the good", "the fair", etc.

there are no objective principles of either, there are instinctual concepts of fairness and goodness, but not objective ones.

There seems to be a tendency where people mistaken their fiats as truths.

[Twilight Imperium]

Or they can come from objective principles of "the good", "the fair", etc.

there are no objective principles of either, there are instinctual concepts of fairness and goodness, but not objective ones.

This. That's not how objectivity works, I'm afraid.

There seems to be a tendency where people mistaken their fiats as truths.

..I beg your pardon? What do cars have to do with this?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

there are no objective principles of either, there are instinctual concepts of fairness and goodness, but not objective ones.

This. That's not how objectivity works, I'm afraid.

Again, none of that is an argument, it is simply presupposing the truth of your opinion and expressing it.

[Elemental North]

Honestly, why does it matter if God is real, or not? Atheists trying to prove God isn't real, is just as fruitless as religious people trying to prove that God IS real. In all honesty.

[Twilight Imperium]

This. That's not how objectivity works, I'm afraid.

Again, none of that is an argument, it is simply presupposing the truth of your opinion and expressing it.

Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not. If nobody believed in the concept of "evil", would it still exist?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

There seems to be a tendency where people mistaken their fiats as truths.

..I beg your pardon? What do cars have to do with this?

Because you proclaim something, and you proclaim it vehemently, as if it were a command, it still does not make your opinion true, or provide anything resembling an argument.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, none of that is an argument, it is simply presupposing the truth of your opinion and expressing it.

Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not. If nobody believed in the concept of "evil", would it still exist?

One can hold that opinion, and many do hold that opinion, yes. That is the meaning of objective.

[Sociobiology]

This. That's not how objectivity works, I'm afraid.

Again, none of that is an argument, it is simply presupposing the truth of your opinion and expressing it.

because you are the making a claim, you must back it up.
if you have evidence of an objective concept of fairness, please feel free to provide it.

[Twilight Imperium]

Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not. If nobody believed in the concept of "evil", would it still exist?

One can hold that opinion, and many do hold that opinion, yes. That is the meaning of objective.

Does your opinion differ? If so, what is it?

[Sociobiology]

Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not. If nobody believed in the concept of "evil", would it still exist?

One can hold that opinion, and many do hold that opinion, yes. That is the meaning of objective.

no that would mean it is subjective.

[Sociobiology]

..I beg your pardon? What do cars have to do with this?

Because you proclaim something, and you proclaim it vehemently, as if it were a command, it still does not make your opinion true, or provide anything resembling an argument.

pot and kettle.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, none of that is an argument, it is simply presupposing the truth of your opinion and expressing it.

because you are the making a claim, you must back it up.
if you have evidence of an objective concept of fairness, please feel free to provide it.

Unfortunately, I am not even making a claim, I am simply saying that it is possible to believe in another philosophical position than the one that you are posting. You are the one that is making a claim, and failing to back it up in anyway.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because you proclaim something, and you proclaim it vehemently, as if it were a command, it still does not make your opinion true, or provide anything resembling an argument.

pot and kettle.

And, I am not proclaiming anything, I am merely expressing the possibility of being a moral realists, with all the arguments and counter arguments that entails, rather than simply stating my opinion as fact.

[Twilight Imperium]

because you are the making a claim, you must back it up.
if you have evidence of an objective concept of fairness, please feel free to provide it.

Unfortunately, I am not even making a claim, I am simply saying that it is possible to believe in another philosophical position than the one that you are posting. You are the one that is making a claim, and failing to back it up in anyway.

So you're just trolling? Gotcha.

If you'd actually like to engage with our attempts to back this up, I'd be glad to.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

One can hold that opinion, and many do hold that opinion, yes. That is the meaning of objective.

Does your opinion differ? If so, what is it?

I have no opinion on metaethics as I have not studied enough of it to have an educated position.

[Sociobiology]

because you are the making a claim, you must back it up.
if you have evidence of an objective concept of fairness, please feel free to provide it.

Unfortunately, I am not even making a claim, I am simply saying that it is possible to believe in anothe philosophical position than the one that you are posting. You are the one that is making a claim, and failing to back it up in anyway.

I have not provided one philosophical position aside from empiricism.
do you know what the difference between objective and subjective is?

morality is a social construct, thus subjective.