A perfect god can not exist?

and to Logos ? And to Phenomena ? and to behaviour ? Absolute value its constrained to relative meaning...Moral has a meaning, therefore Moral has limits...if Moral is an object Moral is relative !

yes




moral ( as in what is right and wrong ) is not an object , it is an idea

yes

Originally Posted by Fil. Albuquerque




So it's ok to torture and skin animals alive just for sport, then?

That must really hurt if god is in your mind.

Of course not ! its relative to us to not let, but its not the case that its relative to them to prevent it...

Hi North !

But an Idea is an Object...surely you agree !

It seems so for most of the christians.

Can I in fact imagine what does not exist ? out of were ?

"All moral truths are relative": For any moral proposition P, and any two frameworks S and W, ~(W)P and (S)P

Proof by Cases with LEM:

1 (1) ~(W)P and (S)P (premise)
1 (2) ~(W)P (and Elim 1)
1 (3) (S)P (and Elim 1)
0 (4) [(W)P and ~(S)P] or ~[(W)P and ~(S)P] (LEM)
5 (5) (W)P and ~(S)P (As)
5 (6) ~(S)P (and Elim 5)
5 (7) (W)P (and Elim 5)
1,5 (8) ^ (~ Elim 3,6)
9 (9) ~[(W)P and ~(S)P] (As)
9 (10) ~(W)P or (S)P (DEM 9)
11 (11) ~(W)P (As)
5,11 (12) ^ (~Elim 7,11)
13 (13) (S)P (As)
5,13 (14) ^ (~Elim 6,13)
5,9 (15) ^ (or Elim 10,11,12,13,14)
1 (16) ^ (or Elim 4,5,8,9,15)
0 (17) ~[~(W)P and (S)P] (~Intro 1,16)

So (1) is self-refuting.
Therefore, "All moral truths are relative" is false.

I don't understand your notation. Can you put your argument in plain English so I can actually determine if it even makes sense or is just another attempt at obfuscation by you?

We just assume an instance of "all moral truths are relative," namely, a proposition that is true in one framework and false in another (MMR). Then by the Law of Excluded middle (P or ~P) we refute the initial premise. Reductio ad absurdum.

The law of excluded middle doesn't apply between two different frameworks. A proposition or its negation is true within each framework but not between them.

But you are committed to the thesis that

[~(W)P and (S)P] is true. That's a framework-independent claim, as you yourself have countenanced. So the argument is both valid and sound.

Again, please use plain English. If you're right, I'd like to understand why so I can change my mind but you aren't making it easy for me.