Do these two points defeat the "moral argument" for God's existence

[Nancy]

A concept can exist objectively but it's meaning can be subjective. Example being the concept of tall. Tallness exists as a concept objectively, but what is tall is subjective. A six foot 2 inch person might be considered tall in a setting of middle school kids while that same person would not be considered tall in a setting of professional basketball players. The Concept exists objectively, but the meaning and application can be highly subjective.

I'm allot taller than I look,

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Our = individuals, communities, societies, or locales in both space and time.

Yup. And that would include Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. Right ? They had an "our" as well. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

A concept can exist objectively but it's meaning can be subjective. Example being the concept of tall. Tallness exists as a concept objectively, but what is tall is subjective. A six foot 2 inch person might be considered tall in a setting of middle school kids while that same person would not be considered tall in a setting of professional basketball players. The Concept exists objectively, but the meaning and application can be highly subjective.

Me thinks you do not understand the definitions of subjective versus objective AS IT RELATES TO OUR CONVERSATION .

"Subjective" (as it relates to our conversation) means : That it depends on the "subject" (the individual person). To determine the matter. Eg.: flavors of ice-cream ("good" flavor vs "bad" flavor, etc....). Or morality: It would depend on the SUBJECT or society(ies) involved to determine a good moral vs a bad moral. That is your position.

"Objective" means that it is good or bad, right or wrong DESPITE what the various individuals or societies think.

It does not automatically become "objective", when meanings (flavors, tastes, etc.... of individual persons or societies) decide on a flavor or taste or mutual vote. You seem to think that it can "exist objectively" simply because persons or societies vote and agree on it. Nope, doesn't work like that. If a moral became "good or bad" simply because a collective group figured it was, simply means it's "subjective to them". It doesn't make it objectively good or bad. It was simply subjective to their collective vote. Ok ?

And to the extent that we could adopt your definition, you are STILL in a "pickle". Namely : That even if we say that the Nazis (on your definition) had an "objective moral code of good", that WASN'T subjective (on your view), then you are STILL having to admit that they weren't objectively wrong, to throw Jews into gas chambers. Let that sink in.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What can be wrong with the idea of might makes right is the potential lack of equity for those who are not among or on the side of the mighty....

Wait, aren't you seeing your inherent contradiction ?

You have implied, in your above statement, that the "high and mighty" had taken the wrong position in a matter (thus requiring civil disobedience, protests, etc....) Eh ? Ok, but then what does that imply ?? It implies that there is a HIGHER MORAL STANDARD that the protestors have called upon, that required that they march, protest, etc.... "against the establishment powers". But wait ! That presents a problem to Truth-OT. Because he is on record as having said that the society (powers-that-be) *ARE* what sets the stage as "prevailing moral code".

So if that's the case, then why would you be picketing against the establishment ?? You have just contradicted yourself. The moment you think/say you can protest the establishment, is the moment you seem to imply (say it isn't so) that there is an objective moral standard that exists OUTSIDE of the establishment.

Hmmm, I think Truth-OT is starting to get it. I think he's about to switch sides and agree that there are objective moral standards that exist outside of what societies, power, collective vote, and individuals think. But let me guess: He will furiously hang on to subjective morals, despite the test drive failures of his views. Why ? Because he sees where that would go, if he agreed to objective morals . And ... heaven forbid we can't go there. Right ?

....Why do you assume we cannot consider something in the past wrong based on an understanding we have in the present?

I do NOT "assume" that. *You* are the one who must assume that. *You* are the one who says morals are subjective (vs objective), not me. So on *your* view, you can not look back on history and say they were "wrong" for their collective vote morality. Because to *them*, it was a "good moral". The most you can say is that it was "subjectively" wrong, not "objectively" wrong. OK ?

I, on the other hand, *CAN* look back on history and say they were "wrong". And I can mean that in an objective way (that they were *truly* wrong). You, on the other hand, according to your view, do not have that ability. All you can say is that you don't prefer what they did back then. And not that it was objectively truly wrong.

This is your view, not mine.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It is so easy to discuss this with persons who say that morals are subjective. And persons that say that there isn't such a thing as objective moral absolutes. Why is it so easy ? Because all you have to do is follow them around for a day, or read their very next breath post, and you'll see that they DO INDEED SUBSCRIBE to objective moral absolutes. They contradict themselves within their very next breaths. But they will furiously hold on to "subjective morals", lest they (gasp) hint at some sort of law-giver objective moral code. And .... heaven forbid (no pun intended) : We can't go there. Eh ?

It's more difficult when someone admits that objective moral codes exist (like "don't murder"), yet denies the existence of God. Because then the next step is to ask them: "Where does that objective moral code come from ?". They will immediately say [macro] "evolution" . Because , of course, they have no other game in town to call upon. Then you try to point out to them that "evolution" brought us these various past civilizations, that threw virgins into volcanoes, threw Jews into gas chambers, practiced slavery, etc.... So if "evolution" is the key to objective moral codes, then ... on that view, they can't look back in time and say "those societies were wrong" (in an objective sense).

Any time we think there is something OUTSIDE of "collective we's" and "collective societies" that can adjudicate between the various viewpoints, is the moment we are inherently agreeing that there is an objective moral code OUTSIDE of the "us" and "we".

And then the problem for agnostics is this: Laws (aka codes, morals, duties , etc....) do not come from "whats". They can only come from "whos". In other words, you do not owe a moral duty to a rock, for example. You do not "owe" a moral duty to your evolution. Duties like that are only owed to "whos", not "whats".