A clarification: when around the 3 minute mark I rather quickly pass over different kinds of existence, that's not to deliver any kind of ultimate verdict on the ontological questions that, say, Meinong spent his time analysing. Only to say that the difference between a real horse, an imaginary unicorn, and a square circle is irrelevant for this video: even if we say both the latter two are both 'nonexistent', the thought itself exists within a contingent manifold (the psychology of the one who thinks) and so would depend upon the Necessary Being of God in much the same way as a real horse. The thought itself, if nothing else, exists. Thanks for watching!
Lol if all you are claiming is that according to your epistemology "God" exists as a metaphysical "concept" in the minds of men, then by all means have at it dear. If however you are claiming as FACT the ontological existence of a a specific subjective "God" and that we should ground our morality upon said "Gods" perceived nature/desires you best have something more than the usual apologetic arguments from ignorance and hearsay tales of magic in an old book to back it up. 😜
Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you an analogy perhaps then you will understand........ Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜 Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. Its is a tool/common reference standard conceptualised to measure and judge objective facts. In my earlier analogy the metric system was that tool/ common reference standard that we conceptualised to measure "distances" ( objective facts ) Now absent our metric system tool / reference standard those distances would still exist irrespective our our ability to measure them ( *THEY are the objective facts* ) the tool that is doing the measuring is a *"SUBJECTIVE ONE"* .... only from within a pre-agreed subjective and arbitrarily concieved framework can we make Objective statements about said "distances" If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised. Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
@@trumpbellend6717 thank you for commenting! Superb handle as well. Importantly, that’s definitely not what I’m saying. As I say at 8:50, God is not a being amongst beings, not just some ‘subject’ who has his own desires, impulses, personality etc. In fact, that’s really the main misapprehension I try to clear out in the video. A lot of theists do think of God in this way, but the doctrine of omnipresence (to take one of many) becomes problematic when you think of God as just ‘some being’ that you have to listen and bow down to. It makes no sense to talk about how this being could be everywhere at once unless it was something already present in-indeed, was-Being itself. So I very much agree with your critique of this ‘subject’ God!
@@admoni. Please define the terms "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔 If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion
A thoughtful and intelligent arguement, but the whole thing was just an exercise in begging the question. You made very interesting philosophical points but you started from a flawed position that a god(s) exists. Whatever form it may take; a singular being or some kind of unified force in everything, we have no evidence of its existence.
Yes - God’s existence wasn’t my concern here. This video was speaking specifically to people who already took that for granted. Probably the best video to go to if you’d like to see that sort of content is my one on the New Atheists
I feel like I’ve stumbled upon the early infancy of a truly fantastic channel, keep it up man, really enjoyed the video, happy to be your 30th sub. 👍💕
@@softfeels5375 Thank you so much! Made my day to read a comment so kind!
the True ultimate creator dose NOT NEED "watchers" and "angels" to keep watch, but a possible demigurge dose.
@@NightmareRex6 Very true. Only a being limited in time and space could be in need of another set of eyes.
A clarification: when around the 3 minute mark I rather quickly pass over different kinds of existence, that's not to deliver any kind of ultimate verdict on the ontological questions that, say, Meinong spent his time analysing. Only to say that the difference between a real horse, an imaginary unicorn, and a square circle is irrelevant for this video: even if we say both the latter two are both 'nonexistent', the thought itself exists within a contingent manifold (the psychology of the one who thinks) and so would depend upon the Necessary Being of God in much the same way as a real horse. The thought itself, if nothing else, exists. Thanks for watching!
Lol if all you are claiming is that according to your epistemology "God" exists as a metaphysical "concept" in the minds of men, then by all means have at it dear. If however you are claiming as FACT the ontological existence of a a specific subjective "God" and that we should ground our morality upon said "Gods" perceived nature/desires you best have something more than the usual apologetic arguments from ignorance and hearsay tales of magic in an old book to back it up. 😜
Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you an analogy perhaps then you will understand........
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. Its is a tool/common reference standard conceptualised to measure and judge objective facts. In my earlier analogy the metric system was that tool/ common reference standard that we conceptualised to measure "distances" ( objective facts )
Now absent our metric system tool / reference standard those distances would still exist irrespective our our ability to measure them ( *THEY are the objective facts* ) the tool that is doing the measuring is a *"SUBJECTIVE ONE"* .... only from within a pre-agreed subjective and arbitrarily concieved framework can we make Objective statements about said "distances"
If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised.
Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate.
If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
@@trumpbellend6717 thank you for commenting! Superb handle as well. Importantly, that’s definitely not what I’m saying. As I say at 8:50, God is not a being amongst beings, not just some ‘subject’ who has his own desires, impulses, personality etc. In fact, that’s really the main misapprehension I try to clear out in the video. A lot of theists do think of God in this way, but the doctrine of omnipresence (to take one of many) becomes problematic when you think of God as just ‘some being’ that you have to listen and bow down to. It makes no sense to talk about how this being could be everywhere at once unless it was something already present in-indeed, was-Being itself. So I very much agree with your critique of this ‘subject’ God!
See also 5:16 onwards for my rebuttal of the God I think you’re criticising.
@@admoni.
Please define the terms "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔
If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion
A thoughtful and intelligent arguement, but the whole thing was just an exercise in begging the question. You made very interesting philosophical points but you started from a flawed position that a god(s) exists. Whatever form it may take; a singular being or some kind of unified force in everything, we have no evidence of its existence.
Yes - God’s existence wasn’t my concern here. This video was speaking specifically to people who already took that for granted. Probably the best video to go to if you’d like to see that sort of content is my one on the New Atheists
@@admoni. Thanks, I'll take a look.