I'm pissed that I didn't get any mustard.

> Can't it just emerge naturally from good behavior and common understanding? Why does it need to be Absolute and tied up to unchanging principles?
@Yussuki ₪ common understanding is entirely subjective, and if its not absolute than terrible things like murder rape etc are not absolutley wrong

So my questions is: Do you think that both of this statements can be true at once? 1. God exists because morality exists and 2. Morality can exist even if God does not exist? What you say ? Thanks Malachi.

I usually give food reactions cause in my culture, when you talk something you usually eat while debating. Its a ritual . Its a sign of friendship 😛

Have some eggplant in that case

> So my questions is: Do you think that both of this statements can be true at once? 1. God exists because morality exists and 2. Morality can exist even if God does not exist? What you say ? Thanks Malachi.
@Yussuki ₪ ive seen the moral areguement used for God's existance. It has some weight but too prove a God can make objective moral laws God must be proven Omni benevolent. How to we prove God omnibenevolant?

🙃

Zino, it feels pretty circular.

“God” is that which all things originate. I’m not merely asserting a fact here, I’m making an equation.

@Zino, what do YOU call the source of existence and all things?

> So my questions is: Do you think that both of this statements can be true at once? 1. God exists because morality exists and 2. Morality can exist even if God does not exist? What you say ? Thanks Malachi.
@Yussuki ₪ 1. Needs to be demonstrated. 2. Yes.

I'm fine with your Number 2

“I’m fine with your Number 2” ew, Malachi 😛

What’s wrong with his number 1 Malachi? Please demonstrate? The burden of poop is on you

In school and college we were thought about "coincidentia oppositorum". This philosophy of learning is deeply enrooted here. That means you must always find the best way to reconcile contradictory thesis, even it seems beyond common logic. Also, you need to keep a clear distinction where common logic cracks and why.

Does God not exist because immorality exists? Or is immorality a necessary thing that comes from morality? Did God create morality? Did morality create God?

The reason being that it unlocks your mind.

Those questions come immediately to mind.

Zino - your 1 statement is a direct claim. Your 2 statement is more nuanced with words like ‘can’ and ‘of’ ... I’m not sure that’s a good ‘opposite’ really

“Logos” is the WAY you know things. There are things your Logos will fail to know.

To know Him, you must relinquish your Logos for His; “Logos” is literally the word used for “God’s word” and is what represents Christ, the “way to the Father the Truth”

We are the seeing leading the blind. A blind man trusts you see what you say you see. A seeing man trusts Christ sees what he says he sees.

Regardless, “the way to the truth” is super important here, and has everything to do with Morality.

Science is a way to the truth (it is a FANTASTIC way) but it can’t lead you to all truths... only the ones that YOUR logos can measure, predict and control with.

Relinquish that need to control the destination, and it becomes clear that there are WAYS to the truth that you can follow, even if you don’t understand, and arrive there.

Again, like a blind man following a seeing man. Be a seeing man who follows Christ (AKA, God’s Logos)

** 1. God exists because morality exists and 2. Morality can exist even if God does not exist? ** Can you make them work together? They are not always necessary opposed. Just taking them as they would be true statements each.

Truth exists, you exist, there’s a way to get to the truth.... morality is related to that way.

You seem obsessed with the concept of truth.

Truth <- Way / Morality <- You

So do you Malachi

not in a bad way. just noticing.

We all act as though there’s objective Truth;

Why is truth important?

If truth is “what is” then all right answers rely on it

Very beautifully and consistently said, @JPMcGlone 👏

Don’t you want the right answers?

What is the difference between objective and subjective truth?

“Subjective truth” makes no sense. People usually mean “subjective experience of an objective Truth”

The few who do believe in Truth itself being subjective will claim that the universe isn’t real, it’s just a manifestation of our collective imaginations (or something like that)

Let me put it this way.
If truth lead to everyone everywhere being immensely miserable forever, then no, you can keep your truth.

But nobody acts as though the universe is something we will into existence. We act as though it’s objective and consistent, so I don’t entertain discussions around Truth being whatever we collectively fantasize and will it to be

heads up, my attention is not fully on Disc

If you care about being well, you’d want answers on how to be well. Answers rely on truth

There are many kinds of truth.. corresponding, utilitarian, coherent, redundant or semantic i think you;d call them

Or Truth thourgh omission if I'd translate it into english

There is no answer to "how to be well."

Those aren’t “different truths”
Those are different models of Truth. Or different Truth claims.

You cannot make a Truth claim or a model of Truth... without Truth.

Truth prefaces all.