Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

"While Im not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise I would say Im probably a cultural Christian," the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. "Theres tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek."

Christian beliefs, Musk argued, "result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans Im actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think theyre very good."

{SOURCE}

For debate.

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

[The Tanager]

I think very little in reality can be known to be factually true (i.e., with absolute certainty). So, yes, it may not actually be morally bad.

So how do you categorise something like that?

It sounds like your justified fact.

The kind that says the moral value of an act depends on the person, to where the exact same act can be both morally bad and morally good.

i am not arguing anything to do with that. I am more interested in focusing on what actions require moral values be assigned to them, and how (through what process) and why.

Okay, but I was making a comment on moral subjectivism.

You earlier example re abusing someone who is a homosexual thinking to do so it is morally good, but those who think so cannot know the objective reality of such an act being morally good because it is actually morally bad.

Why is the action assigned as morally "bad" how does this happen, and why does this happen?

I understand it as a subjective process, where there is no objectively obtained reason why a homosexual should be abused.

My claim here has been two-fold (although I havent put it exactly like this before):

(1) God, through an act of creating humans with a specific nature (that can be physically harmed) and purpose (which includes not harming others), determines that such an action is morally bad.

(2) Naturalism provides the nature part (that can be harmed), but not the purpose part and, therefore, does make an action morally bad (in an objective way).

On (1), there are objectively obtained reasons, but not on (2).

Okay so we agree that the sun represents an objective physical thing.
And ones' experience of the sun is a subjective experience of a physical thing.

Neither of those things have to do with morality. (subjective or objective) as the sun is not an analogy of objective morality, and one's experience of the sun is not an analogy of subjective morality.

Is that what you are conveying (re the use of the sun analogy)?

The point of the sun (well, I used the earth) analogy, was to speak to how we have experiences of objective truths as well as subjective truths because you seemed to say that having an experience means all truths are subjective.

Is a computer an objective thing?

It can be experienced both as objective and subjective. So can the simulations which a computer produces.

Then something doesnt need to pre-exist humans to be objective.

If one is to argue that we get our morality from an outside source, why is it that our morality appears to come from an inner source and how can these seeming differences be reconciled?

Why do you think it appears to come from an inner source? Could you explain that more?

Then most facts will fall under.
Justified Fact (JF)
Unjustified Fact. (UF)

Do you agree?

I think so.

Why shouldn't we place the shape of the earth, the heat of the sun or the material the moon is made of, in the Irrefutable Fact (IF) category even if we can't be certain?

Or, is it fine and of no consequence to place such in the (JF) category.

Because if we arent certain, then it doesnt seem to fit the definition of irrefutable fact.

If God created the earth as a sphere, does he know that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective? I dont think so. He knows it is a sphere because he made it that way.

Why should I think of those as being different from each other? Why do you?

I have never made a computer, but I believe it is a justified fact because of my perspective. Thus, those are two distinct concepts.

Then you should agree that the human form is what human consciousness uses and human consciousness is required in order for objective morality to become, through the actions of the form in relation to human consciousness - that which is subjectively experiencing the form.

I dont distinguish human consciousness and the human form as much as you do. But, yes, humans must exist for there to be human morality. That doesnt make morality subjective.

Where does human consciousness derive, from the form? If so, then what need is there to think morality comes from God, or that we even exist within a created thing?

I believe it derives from God as well.

And if not, then why does the process come through a subjective means, if God is the source, but God is thought by us/taught to us, as being an objective source?

Mathematical truths come through subjective means as well. Scientific truths do. That doesnt mean those truths are not objective or objectively sourced.

Shouldn't God be thought of as a subjective source, and thus morality thought of as from a subjective source which utilizes the objective thing in order to objectify morality?

Not with how those terms are used in the traditional philosophical debate between moral objectivists and subjectivists.

The reverse engineering has to do with acknowledging things existed before humans did.

If God didn't exist, then subjective morality would fit under the Justified Fact category because we acknowledge it exists. It is a fact that is justified.

If God does exist, and is said to be the source of human morality, which category is this best placed under?

Are we justified to think "God's existence" can be categorized as Justified Fact?

Are we justified to think that "God exists as an external objective thing", can be categorized as Justified Fact?

Re that, are we justified to think that "objective morality is sourced in an objective thing", can be categorized as Justified fact?

Or should such be categorised as Unjustified Fact?

I would categorize all of those as justified facts in the same way as the existence of subjective morality if naturalism is true.

Re that, IF we are justified to think that human morality is sourced subjectively and then made objective, through human action, are we justified to categorise that as Justified Fact?

This confuses the terms. Logically, something sourced subjectively cannot be objective (in the sense that the moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is concerned). Yes, it would be objectively true that humans come up with their different moral codes based on their personal preferences, but that isnt the objective that the whole morality debate is about.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #201]

(1) God, through an act of creating humans with a specific nature (that can be physically harmed) and purpose (which includes not harming others), determines that such an action is morally bad.

(2) Naturalism provides the nature part (that can be harmed), but not the purpose part and, therefore, does make an action morally bad (in an objective way).

On (1), there are objectively obtained reasons, but not on (2).

How is (1) determined?

(2) Appears to be along the lines that we naturally can harm and purposefully don't harm, but if we purposefully do harm we are being bad. It appears there is purpose involved either way.

What makes a subjective purpose non-determined re the act of creating humans with a specific nature? What makes "specific nature" an objective thing? Isn't the nature of the human implying an inbuilt quality?

The point of the sun (well, I used the earth) analogy, was to speak to how we have experiences of objective truths as well as subjective truths because you seemed to say that having an experience means all truths are subjective.

I am saying all experience is subjectively attained.

If you and I agreed that the earth was a sphere, with the taste things, with the color of things et al - we are still doing so from a subjective point of view.

What we call "objective" is that which we subjectively experience as outside of what we call our experience as human personalities.
(It doesn't matter if what we are experiencing is actually real or a simulated reality, we behave as if it were real and think of it as objective to ourselves.)
So while it appears that Christianity is an objective thing, it is still being brought into our world through a subjective means.

Then something doesnt need to pre-exist humans to be objective.

The Earth doesn't need to pre-exist humans to be an object? Let's explore than notion to see which category it best suits.

Why do you think it appears to come from an inner source? Could you explain that more?

Let's speak to Mother Love. Assuming we both have experienced this, what about the action of her loving embrace can we understand comes from within her, that we can say is a subjective thing?

If we arent certain, then it doesnt seem to fit the definition of irrefutable fact.

Thus, to remain truthful, we have to place it in the Justified Fact (JF) department, do you agree?

If God created the earth as a sphere, does he know that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective? I dont think so. He knows it is a sphere because he made it that way.

Why should I think of those as being different from each other? Why do you?

I have never made a computer...

That would be a Justified Fact (JF).

...but I believe it is a justified fact because of my perspective. Thus, those are two distinct concepts.

Your belief may be an Unjustified Fact.
Thus they may not be as distinct as you believe they are. Your perspective may be incorrect.

"God knows it is a sphere because God made it that way" would be a Justified Fact (JF).
"God created the earth as a sphere and knows that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective." is also a Justified Fact (JF).

(Even that we are speaking of "God" as analogous, the analogies are equally (JF).)

They may appear to be different, but are actually equally valid and non-conflicting re that.
Do you agree?

I dont distinguish human consciousness and the human form as much as you do.

I have my reasons - chief among those reasons is I have experienced Out of Body. Those who have had such experiences (there are many types of the same) say the same. Their understanding of themselves changes and thus identifying primarily with the human form changes to suit.

But, yes, humans must exist for there to be human morality. That doesnt make morality subjective.

Not if - in reality - we are actually the human form, this is really a real thing being experience and the brain created human consciousness making who we are largely a simulation of sentience projected into the objective world from an objective source and we are all objects for that.

Otherwise we have to deal with The Problem of Subjectivity and place it correctly.

Should subjective experience be seen as (JF) or (UF) or (IF). Where does subjectivity best fit?

Where does human consciousness derive, from the form? If so, then what need is there to think morality comes from God, or that we even exist within a created thing?

I believe it derives from God as well.

And we appear to both agree that this statement belongs in (JF).

The question is - where is "God" in relation to human consciousness?

And if not, then why does the process come through a subjective means, if God is the source, but God is thought by us/taught to us, as being an objective source?

Mathematical truths come through subjective means as well. Scientific truths do. That doesnt mean those truths are not objective or objectively sourced.

They are sourced in the human understanding of the objects God created. This leads to the best conclusion (as far as I am aware) that Mathematical Truths are within God (are subjective to God) and come forth as being stamped into the production bearing the mark of its creator.

The Identifier.

The truths are therefore objective evidence from our perspective but are subjective projection from God's perspective. Our perspective wouldn't even understand this process if not for the subjective human experience trying to deal with understanding.

Shouldn't God be thought of as a subjective source, and thus morality thought of as from a subjective source which utilizes the objective thing in order to objectify morality?

Not with how those terms are used in the traditional philosophical debate between moral objectivists and subjectivists.

Perhaps then, there may be something wrong/off the mark with those traditions?

Are we justified to think "God's existence" can be categorized as Justified Fact?

Are we justified to think that "God exists as an external objective thing", can be categorized as Justified Fact?

Re that, are we justified to think that "objective morality is sourced in an objective thing", can be categorized as Justified fact?

Or should such be categorised as Unjustified Fact?

I would categorize all of those as justified facts in the same way as the existence of subjective morality if naturalism is true.

I agree that these can be placed in (JF).
I also agree that the understanding God as a Subjective Source is equally valid as (JF).

Re that, IF we are justified to think that human morality is sourced subjectively and then made objective, through human action, are we justified to categorise that as Justified Fact?

This confuses the terms. Logically, something sourced subjectively cannot be objective (in the sense that the moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is concerned). Yes, it would be objectively true that humans come up with their different moral codes based on their personal preferences, but that isnt the objective that the whole morality debate is about.

That statement is (JF).

You have brought to attention "Tradition" and - like Science (as a process) - Tradition (as a process) needs to be consistently questioned/re evaluated as more data is brought into our subjective reality from the objective reality.

This cartoon comes to mind.

[The Tanager]

How is (1) determined?

Again, I havent been talking about whether (1) or (2) is true, if that is what you mean.

(2) Appears to be along the lines that we naturally can harm and purposefully don't harm, but if we purposefully do harm we are being bad. It appears there is purpose involved either way.

What makes that bad? The invader is okay with purposefully harming others.

What makes a subjective purpose non-determined re the act of creating humans with a specific nature? What makes "specific nature" an objective thing? Isn't the nature of the human implying an inbuilt quality?

Our human nature can be hurt in specific ways (physical, emotional, etc.). But there has to be something beyond that that tells us that hurting us is something one shouldnt do. Thats what I mean by speaking of a specific purpose. Nature alone provides no purpose. Thats called the is-ought gap, if youve heard of that term.

I am saying all experience is subjectively attained.

If you and I agreed that the earth was a sphere, with the taste things, with the color of things et al - we are still doing so from a subjective point of view.

What we call "objective" is that which we subjectively experience as outside of what we call our experience as human personalities.

I agree. We subjectively experience physical shape as objective, in the sense of being the same for everyone no matter what their opinion or belief is on the matter. We subjectively experience food taste as subjective, in the sense of being different for different people where the same food can be yummy to me and yucky to you. The moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is about which of these two morality is like.

The Earth doesn't need to pre-exist humans to be an object? Let's explore than notion to see which category it best suits.

First, lets make sure we arent talking past each other. You seemed to say earlier that for something to be objective for humans, it had to pre-exist humans. Is that what you believe or did I misunderstand you? If you dont believe that, then there is no reason to go further here.

Why do you think it appears to come from an inner source? Could you explain that more?

Let's speak to Mother Love. Assuming we both have experienced this, what about the action of her loving embrace can we understand comes from within her, that we can say is a subjective thing?

Are you saying that "Mother Love" is completely a part of us, that is, one thing with various things that make up us?

Thus, to remain truthful, we have to place it in the Justified Fact (JF) department, do you agree?

Yes, that is what I said in the first place.

Your belief may be an Unjustified Fact.
Thus they may not be as distinct as you believe they are. Your perspective may be incorrect.

"God knows it is a sphere because God made it that way" would be a Justified Fact (JF).
"God created the earth as a sphere and knows that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective." is also a Justified Fact (JF).

(Even that we are speaking of "God" as analogous, the analogies are equally (JF).)

They may appear to be different, but are actually equally valid and non-conflicting re that.
Do you agree?

Whether two terms are different concepts or not is a separate question from their validity and if they can both be true. In this case, we are talking about the source of Gods knowledge. How did it come about. Either Gods knowledge comes from him creating the spherical earth OR it comes from him observing that someone/thing created a spherical earth. It logically cant be both.

I have my reasons - chief among those reasons is I have experienced Out of Body. Those who have had such experiences (there are many types of the same) say the same. Their understanding of themselves changes and thus identifying primarily with the human form changes to suit.

The question is whether this is a JF or UF.

Not if - in reality - we are actually the human form, this is really a real thing being experience and the brain created human consciousness making who we are largely a simulation of sentience projected into the objective world from an objective source and we are all objects for that.

Otherwise we have to deal with The Problem of Subjectivity and place it correctly.

Do you mean here what follows if materialism ("we are actually the human form") is true? If so, I think illusion is a better term than simulation. If materialism is true, then morality would be subjective.

Should subjective experience be seen as (JF) or (UF) or (IF). Where does subjectivity best fit?

Im still not sure we understand each other on subjective experience, so I cant answer that question.

And we appear to both agree that this statement belongs in (JF).

The question is - where is "God" in relation to human consciousness?

Im not sure what you mean by this question.

They are sourced in the human understanding of the objects God created. This leads to the best conclusion (as far as I am aware) that Mathematical Truths are within God (are subjective to God) and come forth as being stamped into the production bearing the mark of its creator.

The Identifier.

The truths are therefore objective evidence from our perspective but are subjective projection from God's perspective. Our perspective wouldn't even understand this process if not for the subjective human experience trying to deal with understanding.

I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. Our natural laws, mathematical truths, moral truths, since they are part of a reality created by God are sourced in God and subjective from Gods perspective. But we are talking about human morality being objective/subjective, not the standard of morality being objective/subjective.

Perhaps then, there may be something wrong/off the mark with those traditions?

There might be something off the mark with those traditions, but not because you use their terms differently than they do.

You have brought to attention "Tradition" and - like Science (as a process) - Tradition (as a process) needs to be consistently questioned/re evaluated as more data is brought into our subjective reality from the objective reality.

Of course. That is what happens in both science and philosophy. One cant get this through confusing the terms used, though.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #203]

(2) Naturalism provides the nature part (that can be harmed), but not the purpose part and, therefore, does make an action morally bad (in an objective way).

(2) Appears to be along the lines that we naturally can harm and purposefully don't harm, but if we purposefully do harm we are being bad. It appears there is purpose involved either way.

What makes that bad? The invader is okay with purposefully harming others.

Our human nature can be hurt in specific ways (physical, emotional, etc.). But there has to be something beyond that that tells us that hurting us is something one shouldnt do. Thats what I mean by speaking of a specific purpose. Nature alone provides no purpose. Thats called the is-ought gap, if youve heard of that term.

The isought problem arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is.

"Nature alone provides no purpose." = is.
"there has to be something beyond that that tells us that hurting us is something one shouldnt do" = ought.

Is this what you are conveying here?

The moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is about which of these two morality is like.

Yes. A Tangled Thing.

We subjectively experience physical shape as objective, in the sense of being the same for everyone no matter what their opinion or belief is on the matter.

This implies that our opinions/beliefs have nothing to do with actual reality.

We subjectively experience food taste as subjective, in the sense of being different for different people where the same food can be yummy to me and yucky to you

This implies that our opinions/beliefs have everything to do with actual reality.

The moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is about which of these two morality is like.

This implies that either morality has something to do with our opinions/beliefs or it does not.

The Earth doesn't need to pre-exist humans to be an object? Let's explore than notion to see which category it best suits.

First, lets make sure we arent talking past each other.

Yes - I was focused on the Earth and its prior existence re humans.

Why do you think it appears to come from an inner source? Could you explain that more?

Let's speak to Mother Love. Assuming we both have experienced this, what about the action of her loving embrace can we understand comes from within her, that we can say is a subjective thing?

Are you saying that "Mother Love" is completely a part of us, that is, one thing with various things that make up us?

I wasn't saying anything about Mother Love re what it is. I was asking where it derives.

IF
Nature alone provides no Mother Love
THEN
Nature couldn't be the source of Mother Love.

I think that the "inner source" is tied to what we think of as human consciousness. If Consciousness is solely the result of brains, then we would have to say that nature is the sole provider of Mother Love.

"God knows it is a sphere because God made it that way" would be a Justified Fact (JF).
"God created the earth as a sphere and knows that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective." is also a Justified Fact (JF).

In this case, we are talking about the source of Gods knowledge. How did it come about. Either Gods knowledge comes from him creating the spherical earth OR it comes from him observing that someone/thing created a spherical earth. It logically cant be both.

The source of God's knowledge is God. Where I bolded the above is a branching away from what I am arguing. God "observing that someone/thing created a spherical earth" is not something I have argued or wish to discuss at this point (due to branching effect).

I have my reasons - chief among those reasons is I have experienced Out of Body. Those who have had such experiences (there are many types of the same) say the same. Their understanding of themselves changes and thus identifying primarily with the human form changes to suit.

The question is whether this is a JF or UF.

That is a question which does need to be asked and answered, I agree.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)

It does seem to fit this category because it is a subjective experience. From your perspective, my witness might be considered as (UF) - but not from mine...

Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)

I place my experience in this category because it would be dishonest of me not to do so.
There was at least one other witness to this happening and I cannot say for sure that the witness was something I hallucinated or something real or even whether the word is appropriate given its connotations.

Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

This is where I place the experience in terms of importance and how it has changed my way of thinking about everything and/also in relation to how no one has yet critiqued/convinced me that what is being experienced cannot be said to have been real.

Do you mean here what follows if materialism ("we are actually the human form") is true?

Yes I do mean that.

If so, I think illusion is a better term than simulation.

What is the actual difference?

If materialism is true, then morality would be subjective.

And if theism is true, then morality could (so perhaps would) still be subjective.

Should subjective experience be seen as (JF) or (UF) or (IF). Where does subjectivity best fit?

Im still not sure we understand each other on subjective experience, so I cant answer that question.

I place it in (JF) looking to see how I can place it in (IF)...

The question is - where is "God" in relation to human consciousness?

Im not sure what you mean by this question.

My answer is that God is within the human psyche in relation to human consciousness.

I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. Our natural laws, mathematical truths, moral truths, since they are part of a reality created by God are sourced in God and subjective from Gods perspective. But we are talking about human morality being objective/subjective, not the standard of morality being objective/subjective.

God is not a standard while debate ensures.

The Mark of God = evidence that we exist within a created thing. The greatest Mark is consciousness itself. However (and for whatever reasons) humans beings (human consciousness) wandered away from that knowledge, preferring to be distracted by the creation itself and some even ending up convincing themselves that there are/were no God-Marks to be discovered.

Perhaps then, there may be something wrong/off the mark with those traditions?

There might be something off the mark with those traditions, but not because you use their terms differently than they do.

My doing so may be uncovering an unrealised thing which has been - through the power of tradition - covered up. More investigation is required to see if that is or isn't the case.
So I respect tradition even that I question it because I do not want the baby washed away by any careless discard of the bathwater.

Therein my focus (re God) is primarily on YHVH and how he presented to the human psyche and whether the presentation is the real thing, and how to set up means by which to find out.

You have brought to attention "Tradition" and - like Science (as a process) - Tradition (as a process) needs to be consistently questioned/re evaluated as more data is brought into our subjective reality from the objective reality.

Of course. That is what happens in both science and philosophy. One cant get this through confusing the terms used, though.

I think it is more a case of attempting to untangle terms which have long been twisted, and whether The Traditions have been the primary reason why such untwisting is necessary.

You asked for different words to replace "belief" and "knowledge" so that they couldn't confused, and this ((IF) (JF) (UF)) is my attempt at doing so.

In the examples re (IF) (JF) (UF) I keep both "belief" and "knowledge" and even manage to retain a crossover where both do converge in their travels (like Ships in the Night) so I don't see any basis for complaint re "use of confusing the terms" has been established.

[The Tanager]

The isought problem arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is.

"Nature alone provides no purpose." = is.
"there has to be something beyond that that tells us that hurting us is something one shouldnt do" = ought.

Is this what you are conveying here?

No. The ought there is a logical ought. The ought of the is-ought gap is not about logical oughts. We are looking at the naturalist that claims we (morally) ought not abuse Suzie. The (logical) ought I talked about is that the naturalist needs some kind of logical reason to support his moral claim. Im saying that the naturalist has one piece of the (logical) ought in that he can account for the fact that Suzie is harmed when she is abused. But that is not enough of a (logical) ought because of the is-ought gap. Yes, Suzie will be harmed (an is), but why (morally) ought we not to do that (the ought)?

We subjectively experience physical shape as objective, in the sense of being the same for everyone no matter what their opinion or belief is on the matter.

This implies that our opinions/beliefs have nothing to do with actual reality.

Why do you think that? It seems to me that it implies the complete opposite of that. Our opinion/belief about the shape of something objective should be because of how reality actually is, not because of what we want it to be.

We subjectively experience food taste as subjective, in the sense of being different for different people where the same food can be yummy to me and yucky to you

This implies that our opinions/beliefs have everything to do with actual reality.

Why do you think that?

The moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is about which of these two morality is like.

This implies that either morality has something to do with our opinions/beliefs or it does not.

Yes, the moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is about whether our opinions/beliefs have something to do with reality or not.

I wasn't saying anything about Mother Love re what it is. I was asking where it derives.

IF
Nature alone provides no Mother Love
THEN
Nature couldn't be the source of Mother Love.

I think that the "inner source" is tied to what we think of as human consciousness. If Consciousness is solely the result of brains, then we would have to say that nature is the sole provider of Mother Love.

I agree that nature alone couldnt be the source of what I think you mean by "Mother Love". But if it was sourced in human consciousnesses, it couldnt be the source of an objective morality either.

The source of God's knowledge is God. Where I bolded the above is a branching away from what I am arguing. God "observing that someone/thing created a spherical earth" is not something I have argued or wish to discuss at this point (due to branching effect).

Okay, but you responded to where I was disagreeing with a naturalist. The naturalist was saying that, on theism, human morality would be subjective because it is Gods opinion (because if its based on anyones opinion, its subjective). But I think a nuance is being missed.

Think of someone creating a hammer. They have an opinion (1) on how best to make it and do so on those beliefs. It's got a handle, is made of metal, is good for driving in nails, etc. The creator's opinion gives us those objective truths.

But, after it is made, there are subjective experiences involved. The handle is soft to one, but uncomfortable to another, for instance. People (including the creator) can have this second kind of opinion (2).

Applying this to morality, opinion (2), if that is all there is, would lead to subjective morality. But opinion (1) resulted in an act of creation that gives objective features. I think people are conflating 'opinion' when saying any opinion makes morality subjective and why I tried to distinguish God's opinion (in the opinion 2 sense the critique seemed to use) from God's act of creation (although that choice stems from God's subjective opinion).

That is a question which does need to be asked and answered, I agree.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)

It does seem to fit this category because it is a subjective experience. From your perspective, my witness might be considered as (UF) - but not from mine...

I think "from your/my perspective" muddies the waters here. You dont think a wider distinction between human consciousness and human form (than I believe in) is a JF because it is your perspective, it is your perspective because of what you make of the experiences and evidences youve looked at. Perspective as perspective is not a rational justification for the truth of a claim.

Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

This is where I place the experience in terms of importance and how it has changed my way of thinking about everything and/also in relation to how no one has yet critiqued/convinced me that what is being experienced cannot be said to have been real.

Im not sure that should be classified as an IF. Its possible that we arent selves at all, but the dreams of another self. In that case, we cant have self-awareness because we are just illusory. The one dreaming about us may have self-awareness, but not us.

I certainly think self-awareness is a highly JF, but not an IF. I dont know that anything outside of pure math and definitions can fit into the IF category.

If so, I think illusion is a better term than simulation.

What is the actual difference?

Your thoughts seemed to want to still talk about simulated us-es being objects in an objective world, while illusion I think rightly points to how we would not be objects at all. Its like a mirage. The mirage isnt real. It is the real being thinking something exists that doesnt actually exist.

If materialism is true, then morality would be subjective.

And if theism is true, then morality could (so perhaps would) still be subjective.

Yes, not all versions of theism would lead to objective morality. But the one I offered would.

My answer is that God is within the human psyche in relation to human consciousness.

Do you have any reason to share for those who dont already believe this?

God is not a standard while debate ensures.

Once again, I havent been talking about what is the actual standard, but what would follow from the possible standards. If God is the standard of human morality, human morality can be objective (and would be if my form of theism is true). If naturalism is true, there is no standard and human morality would be subjective.

The Mark of God = evidence that we exist within a created thing. The greatest Mark is consciousness itself. However (and for whatever reasons) humans beings (human consciousness) wandered away from that knowledge, preferring to be distracted by the creation itself and some even ending up convincing themselves that there are/were no God-Marks to be discovered.

Im not sure its greater than other marks, but I agree that the existence of human consciousness is a mark of Gods existence. I dont think naturalism can explain consciousness beyond offering blind faith. But Ive been talking about morality.

I think it is more a case of attempting to untangle terms which have long been twisted, and whether The Traditions have been the primary reason why such untwisting is necessary.

You asked for different words to replace "belief" and "knowledge" so that they couldn't confused, and this ((IF) (JF) (UF)) is my attempt at doing so.

In the examples re (IF) (JF) (UF) I keep both "belief" and "knowledge" and even manage to retain a crossover where both do converge in their travels (like Ships in the Night) so I don't see any basis for complaint re "use of confusing the terms" has been established.

Yes, this is fine. I was talking about your understanding of subjective/objective.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #205]

My answer is that God is within the human psyche in relation to human consciousness.

Do you have any reason to share for those who dont already believe this?

I have no motive in that way. I am more interested in sharing with those who are interested.

Re "illusion"

Your thoughts seemed to want to still talk about simulated us-es being objects in an objective world, while illusion I think rightly points to how we would not be objects at all. Its like a mirage. The mirage isnt real. It is the real being thinking something exists that doesnt actually exist.

We think differently about that.

I don't think of us as being "objects" but do think of the human form as being an object.

I think of us as being mind(s) experiencing objects.

I think of illusion as being something we know is happening isn't real, and go along with it as if it were.

This would be the same if we minded ones were in a simulation and knew that we had willingly being placed there.

(Evidence to do with witness reports re Near Death Experiences say as much - but there are other ways we can use to get to the bottom of that.)

The reports I place in (UF) for the convenience of further discussion.
I also regard all biblical reports in the same category.
Do you agree?

I agree that the existence of human consciousness is a mark of Gods existence. I dont think naturalism can explain consciousness beyond offering blind faith. But Ive been talking about morality.

So have I.
I have been talking about it as something which comes through human consciousness, which we agree can be said to be evidence as a mark of Gods existence.

Again, this understanding we agree on can be placed in (UF) for the time being.
Do you agree?

As an example, the story where the adultness is brought to Jesus for his judgement as to whether he agreed with the tradition, or would show himself as in disagreement with the tradition.

What he showed was that when the tradition is peeled away, what remains is within each human person to determine, based on a simple fact.

"Those without sin can cast the first stone."

The statement can be categorised (JF) and could possibly be (IF).

In relation to the naturalists claims re subjective morality, it appears all one is required to do is identify the source of the moral, which for them, ends at themselves.

The difference is that theists assign an extra source (GOD) but many appear to sever the connection between GOD and Human in the sense that we cannot/should not take any credit for our actions, unless those actions are "bad" in which case, certainly we are to blame.

The third option is that yes "Morality comes from GOD - but our personal subjective experience has something to do with it too" in whether we allow for that, disallow for that or understand that to be an interactive co-creative thing both GOD and the individual are engaged with.

And all of this is going on subjectively within the human mindset.

I have no comment re other parts of your reply at this time, as I am still finding it difficult to understand what it is you are trying to point out there, so it is best to place it to one side, until we can figure out where we do actually agree.

[The Tanager]

We think differently about that.

I don't think of us as being "objects" but do think of the human form as being an object.

I think of us as being mind(s) experiencing objects.

I think of illusion as being something we know is happening isn't real, and go along with it as if it were.

This would be the same if we minded ones were in a simulation and knew that we had willingly being placed there.

I think this is the objective/subjective confusion coming up again. By object I meant a thing that actually exists. You believe minds that experience the human form actually exist, I think. Therefore, you should believe minds are objects in how I was using that term. If you want to use a different term, you can provide it and Ill try my best to translate my future posts using your language. Something that doesnt actually exist (like a mirage) would not be an object. Im not sure simulation brings that difference up as well, but if it means the same to you, we can use them synonymously.

(Evidence to do with witness reports re Near Death Experiences say as much - but there are other ways we can use to get to the bottom of that.)

The reports I place in (UF) for the convenience of further discussion.
I also regard all biblical reports in the same category.
Do you agree?

No, I believe biblical reports (a term that may need to be explored to get our nuances) are JF.

So have I.
I have been talking about it as something which comes through human consciousness, which we agree can be said to be evidence as a mark of Gods existence.

Again, this understanding we agree on can be placed in (UF) for the time being.
Do you agree?

Which understanding? I dont think morality is sourced in human consciousness (and therefore isnt justified). I do believe human consciousness is a mark of Gods existence is a JF.

As an example, the story where the adultness is brought to Jesus for his judgement as to whether he agreed with the tradition, or would show himself as in disagreement with the tradition.

What he showed was that when the tradition is peeled away, what remains is within each human person to determine, based on a simple fact.

"Those without sin can cast the first stone."

The statement can be categorised (JF) and could possibly be (IF).

In relation to the naturalists claims re subjective morality, it appears all one is required to do is identify the source of the moral, which for them, ends at themselves.

Im not sure I understand what you mean about "what remains is within each human person to determine". Jesus wasnt saying morality is for each human person to determine; he tells her to sin no more.

The difference is that theists assign an extra source (GOD) but many appear to sever the connection between GOD and Human in the sense that we cannot/should not take any credit for our actions, unless those actions are "bad" in which case, certainly we are to blame.

I believe that God does not have a role (beyond giving us the life and power necessary to act at all) in our bad actions, but does have more of a role in good actions (in that God can also impart wisdom and strength to us towards that end). I do agree that many, in trying to avoid the extreme of believing God plays no role in our good actions, go too far to the other extreme, to where we play no role at all.

The third option is that yes "Morality comes from GOD - but our personal subjective experience has something to do with it too" in whether we allow for that, disallow for that or understand that to be an interactive co-creative thing both GOD and the individual are engaged with.

And all of this is going on subjectively within the human mindset.

I agree with this third option. This seems like a form of moral objectivism to me (or at least could be moral objectivism; I have to think more about whether a moral subjectivist could (coherently) say something like this).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #207]

(Evidence to do with witness reports re Near Death Experiences say as much - but there are other ways we can use to get to the bottom of that.)

The reports I place in (UF) for the convenience of further discussion.
I also regard all biblical reports in the same category.
Do you agree?

No, I believe biblical reports (a term that may need to be explored to get our nuances) are JF.

Bible reports are simply that. Incidence which are reported by various authors altogether making up "the Bible".

If you prefer to go that way, then NDE reports can also be upgraded to (JF).

Im not sure I understand what you mean about "what remains is within each human person to determine". Jesus wasnt saying morality is for each human person to determine; he tells her to sin no more.

He doesn't educate her on what "sin" is according to him. It is still left to her to determine what "sinning no more" means.

I believe that God does not have a role (beyond giving us the life and power necessary to act at all) in our bad actions, but does have more of a role in good actions (in that God can also impart wisdom and strength to us towards that end).

Then according to your beliefs, our "bad actions" = "that which GOD has no role in".

The third option is that yes "Morality comes from GOD - but our personal subjective experience has something to do with it too" in whether we allow for that, disallow for that or understand that to be an interactive co-creative thing both GOD and the individual are engaged with.

And all of this is going on subjectively within the human mindset.
I agree with this third option. This seems like a form of moral objectivism to me (or at least could be moral objectivism; I have to think more about whether a moral subjectivist could (coherently) say something like this).

Okay.

[The Tanager]

Bible reports are simply that. Incidence which are reported by various authors altogether making up "the Bible".

If you prefer to go that way, then NDE reports can also be upgraded to (JF).

Perhaps I dont fully grasp your meanings with IF, JF, and UF. My understanding is that I believe the biblical reports are JF and your NDE understandings are UF, while you think my biblical understandings are UF and those NDE reports are JF. We each think the evidence is on our side. We arent both right. At least one of us is wrong about what is a JF and a UF.

Could you rephrase the difference you see between a belief being justified and unjustified in a way that also distinguishes both from being irrefutable?

He doesn't educate her on what "sin" is according to him. It is still left to her to determine what "sinning no more" means.

No, its not left to her. She is being told that adultery is wrong. Jesus isnt saying it is up to her to decide if adultery is wrong.

I believe that God does not have a role (beyond giving us the life and power necessary to act at all) in our bad actions, but does have more of a role in good actions (in that God can also impart wisdom and strength to us towards that end).

Then according to your beliefs, our "bad actions" = "that which GOD has no role in".

If has no role in doesnt include what I bolded from my response above, yes.

I agree with this third option. This seems like a form of moral objectivism to me (or at least could be moral objectivism; I have to think more about whether a moral subjectivist could (coherently) say something like this).

Okay.

Do you choose the third option as well? If so, do you think that is moral subjectivism? If so, why?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #209]

Perhaps I dont fully grasp your meanings with IF, JF, and UF. My understanding is that I believe the biblical reports are JF and your NDE understandings are UF, while you think my biblical understandings are UF and those NDE reports are JF.

Rather, I am fine with thinking bible reports can be categorised as JF, if you are fine with doing the same with NDE reports.

Otherwise there is a possible double standard being used for the one but not for the other.

She is being told that adultery is wrong. Jesus isnt saying it is up to her to decide if adultery is wrong.

Jesus isn't even saying that her adultery is right or wrong, nor that stoning folk is right or wrong. He is not placing himself as the judge as to what is right or wrong but that the answer to those questions are within the individual and for the individual to decide.

She had no objective accusers, including Jesus.

We are not informed as to what the woman decided and the advice in this case (we can assume that it was specific to adultery) was not to do that any more. To think about what one is doing and what the doing of that will risk (from others) for the one doing it.

And where is all this thinking taking place? Within both accusers and accused. (subjectively).

Who did Jesus side with. Neither.

I am not arguing that Jesus didn't have an opinion on adultery. I am saying that he didn't use his opinion as a means of judging any of the participants or imparting some kind of extra law upon an existing law.

I am saying what he was doing was showing how people can keep themselves in line by being aware of their own hypocrisy re a type of antidote which allow folk to see their double standard (and how it impacts inside the shared objective reality) and repent of it (drop the stones and go away and seriously think about things).

Do you choose the third option as well? If so, do you think that is moral subjectivism? If so, why?

Yes, I agree that it is best to understand that process to be an interactive co-creative thing both GOD and the individual are engaged with.

I disagree that GOD does this exclusively from some position outside of the human personality/universe in general.