Do we know for a fact that there is no moral fact? Do we even need such a claim in your argument?

For example, lets say that God did exist and knew all moral facts. First, we don't know if humans have the intelligence to comprehend something that is omniscient, because we're not. Second, belief in a God that does know all moral facts, does not give us any tools to understand or resolve those facts. So we can conclude as a starting argument that belief in a God that does understand all moral facts does not mean we are able to comprehend them, or have the tools and knowledge to resolve them.

I'm just noting that to reach your conclusion you're adding a lot of other unproven assumptions in there (barring the 'if God exists' assumption of course :) ).

I think we intellectually and linguistically evolved well enough to find out a moral fact if there is any. In the end, a moral fact is nothing but a combination of words. The fact that no one throughout history could not offer a moral fact means that there is none.

Well what do you think about this then? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

If God's existence and 'believed' nature are given, he not only knows what's right, he decides what's right; moral facts are whatever god wants them to be. That doesn't mean he'll communicate his conclusion in any given instance. (But he will judge you on your uninformed decision.) So, what use to you is his omniscience?

Any intelligent agent such as humans therefore can know the moral facts. — MoK

No human can know all the facts about any situation. We always operate on incomplete information, filled out with assumptions, previous experience and intuition.

Thus, believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

Of course it doesn't. But believers are usually supplied with a holy book full of examples of rewarded and punished human actions, as well as a cleric to offer guidance. Non-believers have only their own conscience to answer.

I disagree with many of your statements some of these disagreements are because of the different definitions I use. First, good and evil are features of our experiences. Our actions can also be good or evil depending on how they make us feel. When it comes to morality both good and evil actions are permissible depending on the situation. A good action may be wrong or right in different situations. The same applies to an evil action. Given the definition of good and evil existence is neither good nor evil. What matters when it comes to morality is to find out whether we should do good or evil, one is right and another is wrong. We normally either follow our conscience or teaching when we want to decide what to do in a situation. However, as I mentioned in OP there is no moral fact so we are left by either our conscience or teaching.

There is also the power of societal laws, rules, mores, standards and customs to both limit and prescribe our actions. Indeed, that's all morality is: what a community deems desirable, acceptable, reprehensible and punishable behaviour among its members. No good and evil; no moral 'facts', except as groups of people agree upon.

If God's existence and 'believed' nature are given, he not only knows what's right — Vera Mont

He knows wrong and right based on what? His nature?

he decides what's right — Vera Mont

Of course, He cannot decide about what is wrong or right. God either acts based on His nature or based on moral principles so His act cannot be arbitrary.

That doesn't mean he'll communicate his conclusion in any given instance. (But he will judge you on your uninformed decision.) So, what use to you is his omniscience? — Vera Mont

An Omniscient God knows all facts including moral facts if there are any.

No human can know all the facts about any situation. We always operate on incomplete information, filled out with assumptions, previous experience and intuition. — Vera Mont

We can agree on many facts. Here my focus is on moral facts that there is none. And no, we do not always operate on incomplete information... We only sometimes operate on incomplete information... when there is no fact to help us.

Of course it doesn't. But believers are usually supplied with a holy book full of examples of rewarded and punished human actions, as well as a cleric to offer guidance. Non-believers have only their own conscience to answer. — Vera Mont

But there are lots of conflicts in the teaching of different religions. So either there is no God or we should not follow any religion.

There is also the power of societal laws, rules, mores, standards and customs to both limit and prescribe our actions. Indeed, that's all morality is: what a community deems desirable, acceptable, reprehensible and punishable behaviour among its members. No good and evil; no moral 'facts', except as groups of people agree upon. — Vera Mont

Correct.

First, good and evil are features of our experiences. Our actions can also be good or evil depending on how they make us feel. — MoK

Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact. If its a feeling, then what if I feel this is incorrect? Who's right? And that still doesn't counter the base definition I put that good is "What should be".

When it comes to morality both good and evil actions are permissible depending on the situation. — MoK

Based on feelings, or the situation? Which situations are permissible and which are not? If I'm a serial killer and I feel its right to murder people for fun, am I doing good? Why or why not?

Given the definition of good and evil existence is neither good nor evil. — MoK

If you understood the argument correctly, the question was, "Should there be existence?" It is a yes or no question. If one is invalid, the other is valid. If the answer is 'No', then it is good for there not to be existence. But the only way for there to be good, is if good exists. Good must then also cease to be. But if what is good is 'non-existence', and it is good to destroy good, then good is not really what should be, and it contradicts itself. Therefore by proof by contradiction, the answer to "Should there be existence?" is yes. So at its base, any objectively real morality will conclude that existence is good.

If you want to address the arguments specifically, its better that we take the discussion there so I can quote and direct easier. No need, just if you want to continue.

God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

Well, that's just one interpretation of god. But don't forget that for many theists god doesn't properly 'know' anything because god is the source of all goodness and all potential - god is not reducible to the status of some kind of sky wizard, with a set of opinions, god is the ultimate concern and the ground of being itself.

Thus, believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

Theists have no objective basis for morality. In this respect we are all alike. The best a theist can do is form personal beliefs or preferences or subjective views about what they think a god's morality might be. This is why, even in the same religion, theists are all over the place and can't agree on so many moral questions, from the status of women, to euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, gay and trans rights, blood transfusions, stem cell research, divorce, human rights, etc, etc.

He knows wrong and right based on what? — MoK

On the next sentence. He made the rules.

God either acts based on His nature or based on moral principles so His act cannot be arbitrary. — MoK

Why the hell not? He's GOD! He can do anything he wants, make any rules he wants, lose his temper like he did in the Big Book of God Fables, delegate entire tribes to be subservient to other tribes, punish people onto the nth generation for a transgression by an ancestor committedbefore she knew good and evil.... any damn thing he wants.
And that's why gods are a bad idea. We can screw up quite royally enough on our own.

An Omniscient God knows all facts including moral facts if there are any. — MoK

He knows, but if he doesn't tell you, his knowledge is no use to you.

But there are lots of conflicts in the teaching of different religions. So either there is no God or we should not follow any religion. — MoK

That's up to the individual. Religious teaching is fallible - and sometimes dead wrong. Secular law is fallible and sometimes dead wrong. Social mores are fallible and sometimes dead wrong. You make choices, and sometimes they're dead wrong.

Thus, believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

Plato says as much in his dialogue Euthyphro.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact. — Philosophim

That is just a definition.

And that still doesn't counter the base definition I put that good is "What should be". — Philosophim

Good and evil are features of our experiences and they are both necessary.

Based on feelings, or the situation? — Philosophim

Feelings together with reasons, teaching, etc. are factors that define a situation.

If I'm a serial killer and I feel its right to murder people for fun, am I doing good? — Philosophim

A serial killer enjoys killing. So that is one factor, feeling, that plays a role in his/her decision-making. Killing to serial a killer is good and to others is evil.

If you understood the argument correctly, the question was, "Should there be existence?" It is a yes or no question. If one is invalid, the other is valid. If the answer is 'No', then it is good for there not to be existence. But the only way for there to be good, is if good exists. Good must then also cease to be. But if what is good is 'non-existence', and it is good to destroy good, then good is not really what should be, and it contradicts itself. Therefore by proof by contradiction, the answer to "Should there be existence?" is yes. So at its base, any objectively real morality will conclude that existence is good.

If you want to address the arguments specifically, its better that we take the discussion there so I can quote and direct easier. No need, just if you want to continue. — Philosophim

Ok, I will try to discuss my points on your thread later.

God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

Even if we presume God is omniscient and know all the moral facts, but does he care or intervene on every human affairs and events happenings in the world?

On the next sentence. He made the rules. — Vera Mont

He makes rules either based on His nature or based on moral facts. God is accepted to be a moral agent at least within believers.

Why the hell not? He's GOD! — Vera Mont

Is God a moral agent?

He can do anything he wants, make any rules he wants, lose his temper like he did in the Big Book of God Fables, delegate entire tribes to be subservient to other tribes, punish people onto the nth generation for a transgression by an ancestor committedbefore she knew good and evil.... any damn thing he wants. — Vera Mont

I read those stories but I am not a believer of them. I think all believers think that God is a moral agent though. I started this thread in the hope of discussing things with believers too. So far no believer has joined the discussion.

That's up to the individual. Religious teaching is fallible - and sometimes dead wrong. Secular law is fallible and sometimes dead wrong. Social mores are fallible and sometimes dead wrong. You make choices, and sometimes they're dead wrong. — Vera Mont

Correct.

Plato says as much in his dialogue Euthyphro. — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing the link. I will read it when I have time.

Even if we presume God is omniscient and know all the moral facts, but does he care ir intervene on every human affairs and events happenings in the world? — Corvus

That is not the point of my discussion in this thread. I am arguing that humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. Anyhow I think God if we accept Him as a moral agent would care to intervene in human affairs.

That is not the point of my discussion in this thread. — MoK

You started the OP with "

God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

, hence it sounded like God's intervention on morality was highly significant factor in the thread.

I am arguing that humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. — MoK

You are still maintaining God's involvement in morality after claiming it was not your main point.

Anyhow I think God if we accept Him as a moral agent would care to intervene in human affairs. — MoK

Here as well. I am sure there are many sayings by God, which speaks on morality in the Bible. I am not familiar with the Bible, but just inferring.

No, it does not sound so.

You are still maintaining God's involvement in morality after claiming it was not your main point. — Corvus

No, I am not saying that.

Here as well. I am sure there are many sayings by God, which speaks on morality in the Bible. I am not familiar with the Bible, but just inferring. — Corvus

Again, God's intervention is not the subject of this thread.

Again, God's intervention is not the subject of this thread. — MoK

OK, you are just wanting to discuss about the morality of humans i.e.

humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. — MoK

:chin:

Thanks for your clarification.

I want to discuss two things: 1) Morality is not objective and 2) Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts.

Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

I don't know how anyone can argue effectively that a belief in god can resolve a moral conflict. How? How do we know what God thinks about moral issues? Which God is true? Can anyone demonstrate what God's relationship to morality is? Believers can't even agree on morality so it's clearly not working as a useful source of morality.

I want to discuss two things: 1) Morality is not objective — MoK

There are definitely the objective morality for sure. For example, harming others is morally wrong. No one in any corner of the universe would agree that is morally right.

2) Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

Of course not. Believing itself has little do with morality. Morality is about your actions, not beliefs.

However, there are many religious countries in the world, whose moral values are based on their God's teachings. They would say, X is morally right, because the God has said so.

So it depends on which religion you are talking about. Even in Christian religion some of the biblical doctrines are still basis for morality such as love your neighbors, treat others as you want to get treated etc.

Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact.
— Philosophim
That is just a definition. — MoK

A definition of a moral fact! :D

Good and evil are features of our experiences and they are both necessary. — MoK

Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion?

Based on feelings, or the situation?
— Philosophim
Feelings together with reasons, teaching, etc. are factors that define a situation. — MoK

When you include things like reasons, you include facts. Meaning you actually believe that morality is based more on feelings, but also reason. What reason guides us to moral conclusions?

A serial killer enjoys killing. So that is one factor, feeling, that plays a role in his/her decision-making. Killing to serial a killer is good and to others is evil. — MoK

One issue this brings up is you've equivocated two separate definitions into one. "What I like is what is good." Doesn't that really just translate to, "What I like is what I should do?" In what discussion of morality would that ever be accepted? Morality is a discussion about what a person should, and should not do and often concerns the consequences of that action, not merely feelings. For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good?

There is a temptation to attribute what we like with good, because then we get to justify what we like and avoid anything that tells us, "You might like it, but you shouldn't do that." But a real examination that can abandon this personal desire shows how disingenuous the claim, "Whatever I like is good" is.

:up:

There are definitely the objective morality for sure. For example, harming others is morally wrong. No one in any corner of the universe would agree that is morally right. — Corvus

I think you are talking about the conscience that the majority of people agree with it. The conscience is however not a fact.

Of course not. Believing itself has little do with morality. — Corvus

Some believers think otherwise.

Morality is about your actions, not beliefs. — Corvus

Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. The point is that one needs a fact to realize this. There are however no facts when it comes to morality. Therefore, the morality is not objective.

A definition of a moral fact! :D — Philosophim

Are you looking for a definition of moral fact? I defined it in OP.

Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion? — Philosophim

Think of pain that is evil. That is a sign of injury in your body. You look for a cure when you are in pain. Without pain, you could harm yourself more. People who don't feel pain have shorter life expectancy.

When you include things like reasons, you include facts. — Philosophim

Not moral facts since there is none. But other facts are involved in a decision like a thief wanting to rob but he is aware that he might be arrested and sent to prison.

Meaning you actually believe that morality is based more on feelings, but also reason. What reason guides us to moral conclusions? — Philosophim

I don't think that there is any moral fact.

One issue this brings up is you've equivocated two separate definitions into one. "What I like is what is good." Doesn't that really just translate to, "What I like is what I should do?" In what discussion of morality would that ever be accepted? Morality is a discussion about what a person should, and should not do and often concerns the consequences of that action, not merely feelings. For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good? — Philosophim

We have four things when it comes to morality, good, evil, right, and wrong. Good and evil are features of our experiences and we are different in telling what is good or evil in some situations like the example of the serial killer who feels good when he kills while others feel it to be evil. An act might be good but wrong and vice versa. An act might be good and right and vice versa. We mostly depend on our conscience, reason, etc. when we want to decide in a situation.

For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? — Philosophim

The majority of people think that the serial killer's act is evil and wrong. He does not.

If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good? — Philosophim

The majority of people based on their conscience think that it is evil and wrong.

There is a temptation to attribute what we like with good, because then we get to justify what we like and avoid anything that tells us, "You might like it, but you shouldn't do that." But a real examination that can abandon this personal desire shows how disingenuous the claim, "Whatever I like is good" is. — Philosophim

I already differentiated between good and right in my previous comments. Something might feel good but it is wrong.

He makes rules either based on His nature or based on moral facts. God is accepted to be a moral agent at least within believers. — MoK

God is accepted as the moral agent by most believers. If God says "Take your son up that mountain and cut his throat." then the true believer goes up that mountain and kills his kid, because it's the right thing to do, because God said so. Never mind the wimp-out in the OT, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed plenty of babies to their gods, as did the Incas and Maya. Indeed, that Abraham-Isaac story is indicative of the change in the Hebrew culture when human sacrifice was discontinued. At some point they questioned the infallibility of their god's moral compass - or at least the terms as relayed by their priests.

Is God a moral agent? — MoK

Most gods have been constrained by some ethical consideration. But not Big Omni, supposed creator of the whole shebang. He makes the Law; he's not required to operate within that law. He said as much to Job when confronted with his arbitrary persecution of that faithful servant.

I read those stories but I am not a believer of them. I think all believers think that God is a moral agent though — MoK

How do you know what believers think when you don't share their belief? Where do you suppose they get their mental image of their god, if not from the holy books and clerical teaching? Do you imagine that all believers in a unigod have the same concept of that god's nature and will?

I think you've oversimplified and overgeneralized the concept of deity, then made sweeping claims about his moral position, leaving very little for believers to discuss.