With artworks, a lot of it is simply fueled by the idea that scarcity drives up prices even more. So collectors have an incentive to put more limitations on the criteria of value.

More people could make money with less stringent value criteria, but that would just be a lot of people making a little money. People get into the game because they're wanting to make a fortune. Most high-end buyers see it primarily as an investment. So there's a self-perpetuating set of aims that keeps the value criteria much stricter.

It's already well-known that most illegal aliens don't enter the country illegally. They don't sneak across the border.

Even for those who do want to sneak in, are we forgetting about the huge bodies of water that aren't going to have any wall?--the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean?

Wasn't the point of this to evaluate what's the point if there was a God? — Christoffer

I wasn't addressing the "overall point" of the thread. Just the one small bit that I quoted from your post (in relation to beliefs that are common among theists).

Then the act itself doesn't have a moral whatever-you-want-to-call-it. That only occurs in relation to something that's not the act itself. And you're saying that part of what it being moral or not is in relation to is the psychological needs of human beings.

An action is right or wrong if there is a natural standard of value that it is measured against. I've specified what I think that standard is. — Andrew M

Is the natural standard of value in the act itself?

There are no signs at all of interacting with God, a cake enrich my life and it wasn't made by God, you cannot confirm that you will interact with God after death and how we interact is also not confirmed because of the first unconfirmed. — Christoffer

Again, the idea is that this is "just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)"

People who believe these things DO believe that there are signs of interacting with God. It changes their lives in their view, changes their mental/emotional states, their relationships with others, etc.

When one promises to do X, then X ought be done.

Whether or not I approve of X is irrelevant to what it means. — creativesoul

If someone were to say, "When one promises to do X, then X ought not to be done"--so they were to claim that that's the "meaning" of a promise, what would we appeal to if we want to claim that they're (objectively) incorrect?

Facts are what's the case. If you are going to claim that what's the case has a location, — S

Just saw this response now.

"What's the case" is ambiguous to me, because people often use it to refer to, for example, stating propositions. Otherwise, what's the difference between "what's the case" and "state of affairs" a la there being some dynamic physical things in particular relations to other dynamic physical things?

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. — S

I hadn't noticed that comment, but I don't agree that a system of measurement exists when we do not exist. Neither do rules. Clocks exist, but clocks are not the same thing as a "system of measurement."

A system of measurement is an abstract idea, which also doesn't amount to anything without a semantic component, and nothing abstract exists without minds thinking abstractly.

It's simply a matter of a lot of people not being able to, or not being comfortable with accepting a belief "on faith alone." So when we're talking about beliefs that have no support other than faith, the folks who aren't able to or aren't comfortable accepting anything on faith grounds alone are going to balk at the idea. Curious people are going to ask questions about it, they're going to wonder how others can be comfortable with it, etc.

None of that actually logically follows from god's existence, though. It only follows if we assume a variety of beliefs about god.

I would answer, it is irrelevant. If God were proven to be, but not here, not able to interact with us and the world just follows the same physic rules as ever, having us through science and technology tame this nature and universe, without any interaction from that God, then who cares if God is real? — Christoffer

I'm not saying this because I believe it, but I'm aware of the views.

A lot of people believe that

* We do interact with God regularly during our worldly lives; just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)

* Our faith in God enriches our lives in many different ways

* We interact with God after death

* How we interact with God after death depends on what our beliefs were during our Earthly life.

The importance is not in what you derive from God, — Metaphysician Undercover

So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone?

Something "carries a burden" if and insofar as someone thinks about it that way, I suppose.

The question is whether you are reasonable enough to do likewise. And the same goes for Michael. — S

Sure, if I'm claiming to present an argument and I haven't.

Given the way we've set the economy up, if people can get away with charging for something they usually will, and they'll often try to charge as much as they can get away with.

One of the problems in the equation is people being willing to pay. You can't get away with charging (much) if people won't pay it.

To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise. — Jehu

Couldn't you speak about something you imagine?

You can do whatever you want, but I'll just be addressing one thing at a time. If you want to type more than that it's up to you.

No, I didn't go back and read and stop being in such a hurry — Harry Hindu

That was in a post I just made where you just addressed part if it.

You skipped "Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings?" For example

So one thing at a time.

Can you please elaborate and answer the questions I posed. — Harry Hindu

Again, one thing at a time. What do you want to start with?

You skipped this question:
What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you? — Harry Hindu

Yes, I skipped it on purpose. One thing at a time, so neither one of us skips anything.

So I don't know the word "icebox"?

And what I'll keep telling you and you keep ignoring is that you are making a distinction that you don't make with all the other things in the universe. — Harry Hindu

I make locational distinctions all the time, for all sorts of things. For example, I might say, "we need to put this in the refrigerator," or "we don't need to put this in the refrigerator." Or I might say, "You can get that sound from a Roland Jazz-Chorus (amplifier)," so you need to use (plug into) that if you want that sound. Etc.

Right, so meaning is a tool, which is a non-mental thing, right? — Harry Hindu

Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings?

But if you have a start of time and timelessness then cause and effect does not apply to timeless entities. So you can have an uncaused cause as God outside time and have him then cause the start of time and the universe. — Devans99

If there can be something that's timeless, how would we get to any restriction on just what can be timeless? Why couldn't any arbitrary thing be timeless at some point if it's possible for there to be timeless things?

Really now. So you don't believe what you write? — creativesoul

Obviously we're using "disposition" differently .

Who said anything about 'moral properties'? — creativesoul

People were claiming that moral whatever-you-want-to-call-thems (properties, judgments, qualities--whatever word they'd want to use, whatever word they think makes their case best) are objective.

I missed a bunch of posts, but re the above, (logically problematic) contradictions require that we're not equivocating --it needs to be the same exact claim, in the same respect, etc. that's being both asserted and denied at the same time. Different people having different beliefs is not a (logically problematic) contradiction.

Not that moral utterances are really beliefs about something else (something external to the individual in question) anyway, and they're not true or false.

Well it's quite like my showing you a blue cup and you saying "But where is your evidence that it is blue?" — Banno

At which point I'll explain what the objective properties are, exactly--the surface of the cup reflects a particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation, etc., and how we'd provide evidence that it's blue. For example, with a blue cup, we could simply use a spectrophotometer to report the color. Or we could take a picture of it, look at it in photoshop, and check the RGB data. There are a bunch of different things we could do. Those are just two examples of ways that we evidence objective properties of something that has objective properties.

That's not to say that everyone is going to agree with all methods, but we can explain a lot of methods we could use as evidence of the objective properties of something, and then from that point, we could discuss the merits of the methods, etc.

So that's all I'm asking you. What is anything that would count as evidence of objective moral properties? Surely if you believe that moral properties are objective, you believe there's some evidence of this, no? It's not that you believe it via "faith" only like it's a belief in God or something, is it? (If that's the case, at least say so, and I won't ask you for evidence of it again; I'd accept that it's just a belief you have on faith.) So I'm just asking you to tell me what you take to be evidence of its objectivity.

Someone presents an argument. The argument is complex, and not explicitly presented in its entirety. I'm not interested in finding out the rest of the argument - the part which isn't immediately clear to me. Therefore, it's not an argument. (Therefore, it's not my problem!). — S

I still need to answer your earlier post by the way, but re this one, if no statement follows from any other, it's not an argument. We covered that already. Arguments have premises and conclusions that follow from the premises. So for something to be an argument, it's a requirement that at least some statement in the set of claims follows from at least one other statement in the set of claims.

I personally don't care if someone forwards an argument per se or not. But if you claim to, and if you're claiming something like a reductio, then I'll point out if you've not actually forwarded an argument. (I'll also often do that when someone points out that I'm not forwarding an argument--even though I never claimed to--as if I should be forwarding an argument, but they didn't forward an argument, either).

"at age 30, Hussein Bolt was a better runner than Stephen Hawking was at that same age", I can only be right. — ZhouBoTong

No you can't. It entirely depends on what an individual counts as "better running"

Similarly if human life and well-being is valuable independently of being valued then actions can be morally right or wrong. — Andrew M

(1) you're not explaining how the action itself has value, (2) value in general isn't the same thing as a moral property anyway. Say that cubic zirconia and diamonds have value in themselves, independent of us (I don't agree that this is so, but we can imagine it is). Well, that's not moral value. Value in general isn't the same thing as moral value.

You're supposed to be telling me how the action itself has moral value. Do you not understand the challenge? How many times are you going to respond without producing what I'm asking for?

But there is a third option, the universe began causally. — Devans99

I'm not focusing on a narrow usage of the word "universe."

Whatever exists--whatever its nature, if we go back to the earliest thing, either it always existed or it began non-causally.

You can't have the earliest thing begin causally, because then something existed prior to the earliest things, making it not the earliest thing.

If something always existed, it has no start. If it has no start, it has no middle or end. So it does not exist. — Devans99

Right, it has no start, and there's no meaningful way to peg a particular point as a temporal middle. It could have an end, of course. There could be something for which there's no way to peg a particular point as a temporal middle.

But God is timeless and finite - he has a start and end. He can always exist in a finite state by virtue of being outside time. — Devans99

If it's possible to be timeless and finite, then that's possible period. It can't be limited to just some things and not others.

Okay. Could you detail the reductio argument, at least?

You seem to want to be forwarding a logical argument, but where we're only allowed to assume the contingent, contemporary scientific consensuses. The two don't really go together. If you're going to try a logical argument, you need to stick to the domain of logic. If you want to argue that particular empirical claims must be true, you should focus on providing support of that.

You're saying that some of the statements in your initial post followed from other statements, but you just didn't fill out the details that show how they follow?

Well if no-one can explain them and they are counterintuitive, then we can just rule them out? — Devans99

Again, those are the only two options logically. Ruling them out means you just don't bother thinking about or talking about this issue.

But you can't exist without being born. Would the universe exist if we took away the moment of the Big Bang? Everything has to have a 'coming into being' to exist (else its logically incomplete). "Always existed" is an oxymoron. — Devans99

That's actually just a set of assertions, worded different ways, that it's not possible for something to always exist. It's not an argument for it.

Also, that would mean that it's not possible for god to have always existed.

Lol. You don't even understand what an appropriate argument is in the context. An argument of the kind that can be presented in an opening post on this forum is not of the kind which can consist in an infinite regress of premises and supporting arguments for those premises, and then supporting arguments for the premises within the supporting arguments, and so on and so forth to infinity. There's not enough space for that. It would be far too long. — S

So you don't agree that arguments require that some statements follow from other statements?

Again, I'm a realist on whether there are rocks.

That doesn't make it the case that you presented an argument, however, or that you presented a reductio ad absurdum.

The issue isn't rejecting premises. The issue is that you didn't present an argument. In an argument, there need to be premises and conclusions that follow from them. No statement in your post follows from any other statement in your post. Hence it's not an argument.

Reductio ad absurdum is a type of argument. You can't have a reductio if you aren't presenting an argument.