Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

No you are getting the cart before the horse. Since your imaginations can never be real it would follow that it cannot assign meanings, to a physical property, that it does not already posses. A rose by any other name. If you want to believe you've done this then it will only be in your imagination. Reality does not care about your definitions of it. Long after your gone it will still just be what it is.If I imagine myself flying over the countryside, using just my arms, that doesn't make it real. In fact there is nothing you can imagine that is real. IOWS the specific imagination. If you think so, give me an exampleThere is nothing you can imagine that is actually real, including morality. You and your meaningless universe, is literally the blind leading the blind. And I'm not taking a shot at blind people there, I've never really liked that statement Well to be absolutelyfair I've read this three of four times to see if it might contradict anything I am saying, it does not. Even if the above things are true, it doesn't demonstrate that a moral is possible. A moral is an imaginary thing applied to a physical property to make something right or wrong, moral or immoral. Something may be more advantageous or not, but then we may assume that accross any species. Hence no actual moralityAt best morality is a made up concept in a purely naturalistic society. Isn't it interesting that this so called emergence cannot show a causality between brain and consciouness As I've demonstrated, for your illustrations of biological functions, synergies or otherwise, to actually have moral meaning, they would need to be remotely consistent accross species. Heck,they can even have consistency withing your own species. Long disortations only explains complicated versions of the samething, ie survival of the fittest, but it doesn't show that actual morality exists, in a meaningless universe.To demonstrate this absolutely, without a disortation, as is usually Characteristic of you, give me the single argument form that material that you presented that shows actually, how morality exists. You cloud up the issue with verbosity assuming you have made your point. You havent. But if you think I have missed something, give it to me on a single sentence or single argument Which demonstrates my point that your alleged morality cannot exist in reality. Why from a purely naturalistic standpoint are the Nazis actions different than anything you would see in the animal kingdom. The term subjective morality, is nothing but a worthless empty nonsensical concept thrown at reality. Goodness man look at what you wrote above and listen to it, it's double talk nonsesne Son, your at a lose for a lot of reasons. If your above comments do not demonstrate to you that your morality is just junk in motion, nothing ever will. Now pay very close attention. Notice the logical conclusion of your subjective morality approach. Given your position, there is literally NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that could be considered IMMORAL in the future and in different societies as long as enough people agree with it. That means if I could get enough people to agree and I mean actually agree, a person could rape and kill as many persons as they choose, if we could get enough people signed up for that and say it's ok or moralThis is literally what your doctrine teaches. The conclusions of subjective morality therefore have no real meaning at all, IT'S JUST MAKING JUNK AS YOU GO ALONG, hoping everyone else will agree. Hence as I have demonstrated, morality is just a made up term to justify actionsSeriously RAZD, Normalish Bell like Curves. More contrived verbiage that makes morality a joke. I challenge you to demonstrate that the conclusion of your doctrine, is not, as I have set it out. Literally that nothing given enough time will not be considered immoral., or that anything now immoral could become moral. What thinking person would by into that type of nonsense. Oh yeah wait, An Atheist. That is his only option. Even if I didn't believe in God I would not accept such silliness.Changing behaviors described as morality,is actually nothing but matter in motion.Dawn Bertot

And it's not subjectively true through either of these either. Subjective is a made up word, that has no counterpart in reality Well as far as I can see, you just articulated yourself out of actually having and possessing a real morality. You have demonstrated my primary argument as true. That being, that imaginations of the mind are not real things. Thank you Well I really should just let you finish my thread and argument, that Atheist cannot rationally explain Morals, your doing a much better job for my argument. Thank you Again thank you. Are you sure you would rather represent my position, your already doing a good job But then of course there would be nothing to explain if they don't actually exist outside the mind, correct. Making up words in our minds for things that already have thier full meaning in reality, dont need explanations, correct? Or if we decide they do actually have more menaing we are just imagining things, correct? And that's the best we can do. You see modulous your definition of morals is an endless loop of hopeless nonsenseIt is proving my point that even the word subjective is an imagination of the mind. There is no way for the word itself to have any actual meaning in reality. It means relative or nonexistent. It would be like saying I'm creating a word called subjective to describe another nonexistent thing called morality. I'm going to use one nonexistent thing to describe another nonexistent thing. Ok so if animals only appear to be nice or morally good. How did you determine that humans ACTUALLY are nice and morally good, since our behavior, comes from some trail (no pun intended) of thiers.. Indirectly, You seem to be saying that humans are not actually good, that's simply a term we've come up with to describe our actions, that already have biological meaning, that really need no more description. Did I nail it? Well, no I would say that the word Anger is not a real thing. Clearly people can laugh and throw fits, that's they can have biological displays. However, the word hatred or anger do not have actual existence, like Nice or Helpful. In other words (no pun intended), if I make up a word, it can't give the biological process more meaning in reality. A moral property, so to speak. Hence it's not actually possible for you as an Atheist to have an actual moral, except that which is imaginedOne other point I would make, it's not by My Definiton, it's by what reality will allow. So how would a thing called morality Actually exist outside our minds? Even if we throw terms at it does it change what it actuall is and if it exist before humans does our description make it have more meaningDawn Bertot

Which of course means you don't actually have a thing called morality. You have invented morality a thing that is re I don't know why you fellas can't see that you can't make things up and all of a sudden they become real. You can't get close to objective or subjective or Wrong or Right, because these are things that absolutely cannot exist in your purely naturalistic existence. You have made them up. It doesn't matter if you put a tag on it calling it subjective or objective, those things don't exist. You can't start assuming you have something you do notI have demonstrated that your actions and existence is no different than that of the animal kingdom. You don't just get to assume it is. You would need to demonstrate that subjectivity even exists. But how in the world will you do that. Perceptions and imaginations are not real things Your social contract in nothing more than garbage happening, nothing different than the animal kingdom. You assign it meaning because it directly relates to you. Big deal, that does not mean you have a morality, you have junk happening.The fact that you admit in numerous years hence, everything you now believe is moral could be completely different, shows beyond a doubt that you have just thrown words at things that do not exists, ie your morality.You have no hope of demonstrating that the word subjective is real thing. It's a contrivance of the mind. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Humans doing things, is just that, biological life forms doing things,like any species.Ringo, assigning a name to something in reality, cannot give it more ACTUAL meaning. It is what what it is, even if you were never around to describe it. Hence, you Dontand cannot have an actual morality. Hence you cannot explain something that does not exist Your above statement makes absolutely no sense. Certainly, if there exists such a being that is all knowing, he would be able to communicate to me his will. If there exists enough evidence to support that he exists, why wouldn't I be able to know his morality is absolute.Varying views have nothing to with the fact that if God exists, he would logically be absolute in his characteristics. Wow you are a confused fellow. Of course those verses say something about morality, God's character is his morality. Because he is God he is absolute morality. I don't need to be omniscient to know that.Right his judgements are unsearchable and unfathomable, why do I need to be omniscient to know that. No it means ABOVE scrutiny, hence absolute.Therefore I can know he's absolute without understanding him completely

Why do you assume it is necessary, to comprehend God, to know that God exists. I can't comprehend the universe or why it's here, from a humanist standpoint but I know that it is, correct? And what if the universe is infinite, can I not know it exists even if it is?How's that for logic. Luckly, Reality Trumps (Donald) a man made thing called logic. While it has its applications it was not necessary to reality before humans arrived, correct. Well that's absolutely not true. But let's assume it is true. How in the world, would made up subjective morality, help you, to know that absolutely, to know moral absolutes are outside of human consciouness? Is yours an absolute true statement. Even if subjective morality, did exist, which it cannot in reality, but even if it did, it's hopelessly lost in inconsistent endless stupidityThat's assuming things like inconsistent and relative are actual things and they, could actually exist in a purely naturalistic universe. It may just all be relative therefore irrelivantDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I know this is very frustrating for you and I can even hear the frustration in your words, but these are the issues the Atheist needs to deal with, if they are going to claim that they can actually have something reality called moralityThere is more here than just you or humans calling things good or bad, there are fundamentals to be dealt with, ie the fundamentals or reality and reasoning.. beyond you and me there are certain realities that cannot be avoided.If a person was setting out to build a building and just chose to ignore the realities of structural engineering and want to proceed based Soley on perceptions and imaginations, the building would either not get built or it would not standArgumentation is no different. The fundamentals of reason and reality are no different. So if I want to declare and demand that my imaginations and perceptions of my mind are real then I need to be able to show that in a way that is supported by realityIf I want declare and demand that what I have is morality above and beyond just biological or natural processess, then it has to be demonstrated in a rational way that conforms to realityUnfortunately this is not possible. Human behavior is no better or worse than any other species on the planet. This is why things like good and bad cannot actually exist in a Naturalistic universe Yet we are intelligent enough to recognize thier behavior as not immoral, because humans have invented that term. It's a self defeating proposition Why? You get to quote whoever and whatever you want correct?What we witness in humans say verses animals and the animal kingdom, theism and it's tenets corresponds more to reality and answers questions Theism corresponds more to reality in what we see in the natural world in the area of conscience and things that seem to be right or wrong good or bad, moral or immoral. It has the answers to those questions. Naturalism simply cannot contend in that area. By its very nature, no pun intended has no solutionsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your an amazing fellow or gal. You seem to think because you say something that it must be true. This seems to be your primary method of convincing people here, by saying something, then if they do not agree with you, you belittle them for not believing it because you have repeated yourself over and over. Jar have you ever asked a question that you already knew the answer. Yes or no? Try argumentation Jar not assertion. Maybe you could set out the argument that demonstrates why if God is omniscient, he is not allowed to ask a question that he already knows the answer. Or why if he is all powerful he is not allowed to wrestle with Jacob, to demonstrate a point to Jacob. Really Jar your embarrassing yourself. My point is Jar is that if the very thing that allegedly bought u into existence, has no meaning, then it follows you have no hope knowing if your alleged meaning is a meaning or if it is correct. And I'll be darn, if you didn't mess that up as well. But watch, now it gets even worse. Not only are you trying to ascribe meaning ,now your trying to define things as good bad, moral immoral, etc.It doesn't matter if you want to ascribe meaning or not Jar the meaning has no hope of becoming a moral in a meaningless universe. Secondly and probably more important your alleged moralities have no hope of being nothing more than your imaginations. As I have forcibly demonstrate in this threadThe only way that morality could have any hope of reality, is in the context of Theism, otherwise it's nonsense. So repeating your contention that it has meaning, is not the same as showing this logically. Oh goodness, there's that word rationalDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well that's atleast some progress admitting it's not a real thing. But not to be to nitpicky, but morality is an extrapolation of an imagination, we've invented a word to characterize our imagination. An imagination would be me imaging I'm flying over the countryside. So if one wants to imagine he actually has a thing called called morality, he would need to demonstrate that something called good or bad in a moral sense actually exists in reality. Since this impossible, it would follow that the possibilty of morality is less than an imagination. Fortunately, what we see as conscience in humans conforms more to Theism than it does to naturalism. Naturalism has no hope of explaining it. Theism and Judeo-Christianiny explain what we see hear and feel. Romans 2:11-14. Now your starting to get it, subjective can't exist because the imaginations and perceptions are not real, AS YOU CLEARLY ADMIT. Ringo, subjective is just another imagination and perception, so how can it exist. Hence no actual morality But I can understand the reality and concept of infinte in knowledge, without understanding all it all, correctDawn Bertot

I guess your to sciency of a guy to understand what is being said and demonstrated. It seems Ringo is starting to get it. Razd there is no such thing as subjective morality. Your starting in the middle of an argument, then trying to demonstrate your point. You need to start with the basics or reasoning, then build on it. Since there is nothing in a Naturalistic existence that can be identified as right or wrong good or bad in actuality, it follows that there could be nothing described as subjective. It would be like saying, there's a subjective nothing over there. Or thing is is subjective.Sorry, RAZD , philosophy rooted in reason and reality trump science proceedures.Ok bill guy the science guy, let's help you to understand what I just said above in the context of your above statement. Show me in reality in your Naturalistic universe right and or wrong. Show me the actual existence or Wrong. Since I know you cannot do this, we will know that nothing, that is something that does not exist, cannot be subjective, if it's not actually real. Yes RAZD, I understand what your saying, it's not rocket science. But you are ignoring simple basic reasoning because you are blinded by science. Your trying to see something that is not there. Now pay very close attention. All I need to do to demonstrate that what you are saying is not true and not real, is to show that what you describe as moral, in 1000 years could be described as absolutely immoral, or what you describe as immoral could in one thousand years be moral.If you want to describe changing behavior as a meme or synergy, call it what you want, but it's not moral because those are a product of the imagination, suited for your species only. Hence they are nothing more than another biological processLet's remember your first problem. Right and wrong do not actually exist, therefore, calling nothing subjective, is nonsense. It's like saying there's a subjective nothing over there. Morals and specifically conscience only makes sense in the realm of Theism and Judeo-Christianity. It explains the source and the processess. And why consciouness and conscience exist in the first place. If Actual Right and wrong don't actually exist, and it seems there is no way they can, then it follows there is nothing actually morally right or wrong, subjective or otherwise.Dawn Bertot

Unfortunately you can't do this. Explaining something into existence is not the same as it actually existing. Explaining things as good or bad, right or wrong, would of course have meaning only to yourself and your species, which shuts it down as being real in real sense, in the real world, correct? Oh I'm quite sure you think perception, not being real, is irrelevant to the subject. You need for it to be real for your contention to be correct.Oh yes there is much more. Specifically how Theism corresponds to reality. How Judeo-Christianity explains morals in and as real thing Well no what I've demonstrated is that the Socalled subjective is not actually real. So saying that morality is subjective is like saying that, that thing over there that does not actually exist, is subjective. Nothing is or can be subjective and subjective is not a real thing, because there is no actual right or wrong in reality correct? If you could actually give me an example of something that actually exists as RIGHT or WRONG, then you might have a caseSo it seems the ball has never left your court. Oh that's very easy. They came into your minds as a product of your imagination. But as I've demonstrated, if there's even one thing in my imagination as not real and nonexistent, then it would follow that nothing in our imaginations, that is the imagination itself is not and could not have actual existence. If I was the first human to witness the taking of another human life and I imagined it as wrong, there is no logical way it could actually be wrong. And certainly not subjectively wrong, as that would be less than not real, correct.You see Modulous there is the reality of the action in the real world we have to deal with before we imagine something about it. Creating words and concepts about it don't give it more meaning, but your free to imagine it if you wish Well no you cant. You can't do this anymore than I could explain how I am existence and I created everything. How would you explain my imagination which corresponds to things in reality, as right. Your imaginations of morality don't exist. We're the same actions and biological functions taking place in the animal kingdom, before you arrived. We're they actually right or wrong good or bad. You can't invent morality because it suits you Sure they do, but so does every imagination I can drudge up that is clearly not real either Right because both are simply biological functions. Only human arrogance would assume it has the right to invent right and wrong. It's not even a logical possiblity in your existence. How could a person of your seeming intelligence, advocate that if two different people percieve something in the real world, something they witness, then one considers it right, the other wrong, both be correct or right Correct, so your imagination of the lady is not real, even though you know they exist in reality. IOWS you can imagine something that is not real. Like imagining that the word morality describes behavior in the real world as good or bad. So while you have the capacity to imagine, that which is a product of the imagination is not actually real.Question, is it possible for me to imagine something that s not actually real, even though I can imagine it? If I witnessed something in the real world then I imagined it as something then gave it a title, would it be possible for me to only be imagining it and it's title I gave it? So then according to this reasoning I could classify tastiness as moral or immoral, beauty as right and wrong. Or would it more correct to say that in reality imaginations are hopelessly unable to establish any kind of real existing morality So then you would argue and defend a person's right to believe that any immoral act as he sees it, would be ok, right, correct and moral as long as his mind percieved It that way? Since imaginations exist and are real things, correct?Further, that logically there is no real way to hold that person accountable, because he is just going by his own conscience. Atleast from a rational standpoint, not assuming socity normsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And of course you avoided answering my questions as usual. Is it possible for an intelligent being to ask a question, that he already knows the answer. Your problem is the same either way. Your alleged meaning is as unless a a screen door in a submarine. Your meanings do not and will not affect the essence or the outcome of the universe. You are incapable as well of creating a meaning for or about the universe. Your meanings are imaginary for to many reasons to mention. But one is that your imaginations are incapable of being real to begin with,including your imagined meanings. Secondly, since your a speck in the universe, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that any meaning you give it will no doubt be faulty and inaccurate. Hence, this is why science changes its views every few 100 years.You've got to be kidding, meanings? Sorry my simple friend, as I've argued without fear of contradiction, human constructs are an imagination of the mind, with no real hope of being real. The mere fact that every human being could have a totally different idea on any given topic, demonstrates they are imaginations with no hope of actually becoming a reality muchless a moral. My argument stands.Jar imaginations are not real things, if we throw our imaginations at real things in reality, it doesn't ACTUALLY give them more meaning or morality. That's you just imagining things, like me imagining I am flying over the countryside using nothing but my arms.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Correct, as such it has no hope of being anything but an imagination or perception. As a result of that it follows that it is not actually a moral. That would just be another made up word by humans. It should be obvious to even the simplest of minds that if something like human morality only applies to humans,, as you've indicated, that it's imaginaryIf it only helps your species and ignores all others, it's not real. Therefore Atheists or those that subscribe to the idea that they can have morals is just another imaginative thing. Whoa I was happy to read that. It seems as though you are saying morality might a casually exist as a real thing Well I thought I already had shown what it was. If the Socalled fantasy novel corresponds to what we see in reality, I'd hardly, call it fantasy correct. Atleast that's a start at it not being fantasy.It explains what a conscience is and where it is from. It explains in a logical rational way that for morality to be morality actually it has to be absolute, dependant upon an infinte source. Then it tells us how the conscience works. For exampleIn Roman's 2:14When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.15They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them16on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.It shows us what you have already agreed to, that morality is from outside source, given to us by God, written on the heart. It shows us that conscience actually exists. This corresponds to reality and what we see, feel and knowThe Socalled fantasy novel, shows and explains that Truth is a real thing not an imaginary relative thingJohn 18:37You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."It shows us that Truth actually exists and is outside the human source. But this is something that corresponds to reality and we can know by what is in us that Truth is realSo as a starter we see the fantasy novel atleast corresponds to what we see, feel, hear, think and know. So as a starter id say its anything short of a fantasy. A blind purposeless universe can never make sense of morality, muchless possess itDawn Bertot

Real how?

Except for the fact that you forgot to quote the part that says, "For that which may be KNOWN of God, is manifest In Them, for God hath SHOWN it unto them". It's written in and on thier hearts at birth. Well see thats the beauty of the word of God, it conforms to what we know about morality in reality. For exampleJames 1:13-16 Says13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.16Do not err, my beloved brethren.So these are things we see that conform to conscience, something that exits. It's a description of what we know in our heartsDawn Bertot

Or three that the concepts or perceptions are actually real objectively. Like the word morality. The word itself or its implied implication have no meaning in a purely naturalistic universe. It's a completely imaginary invention. Throwing the word subjective at it makes even less than real, if that's possibleBTW , it's impossible for you to imagine impossible things. For example it would be impossible for you to imagine a way other than the three ways the universe could have came into existence. That's impossible for you to even
imagine it. You cannot imagine a square circle, etc. So it's impossible for your to create a morality since you are finite and would not ever know what that was, except it was revealed to you And imagination that does not actually exist. Like the term morality. Your imagining the behavior as morality. That's just a made up word that you alone have imagined. While you can observe thier behavior, it's a logical impossibility for you to describe it as unethical or ethical, since you have no hope outside of God of knowing what that might be, correct? Subjective is just another imagined word that means nothing in an ethical sense. If you think he presented something that I did not respond to in argument form, please present I'll show you I did Opinions are observation, but they are not morality. Because these fellas have no hope of defining what is actually a moral outside of God. I know this because as soon as I ask then what it is they say it's subjective, which means any ones opinion is valid on any given same single behavior. Now that's not only not moral but it's nonsense. It's another way of describing nothing That's the point NCE, you could only have a moral reaction if you knew what adultry was or what murder was. There is no way to define these in a purely naturalistic universe. Animals were doing these things long before humans came along. Simply because they came along and gave it a title, doesn't make it real. It just means they don't like it. Is it murder and adultry when animals do these things today?Naturalism has no hope of actually having a moral or defining it outside of an infinite God.Notice I'm not saying people can't describe things, I'm saying when it is purely naturalistic it has no hope of being real. They have no hope of describing moral, because they have no way of knowing what it is outside of God. I don't see how my argument could be upset or contradicted. If you think you can go ahead. There's no hope of distinguishing human behavior and animals. Throwing words at it doesn't help. But give it a try. Don't mean to sound condescending, but you don't understand how critical thinking actually works. It doesn't matter what A or E think or what thier opinions are or are not. It's not logically possible for a moral to exist if both A and E totally disagree of the meaning of a single point of behavior as describing it as moral. That's not only not actually a moral it doesn't even make sense. What if there were four more A s to go along with A against B C DAND E. It's irrational and relativistic nonsense.Because they describe morals as subjective makes it logically impossible to be anything actual. See what I mean. Does your above statement even sound rational from a reality standpoint, forgetting thier opinions. Hence morals and morality are a joke outside of an infinte in wisdom GodDawn Bertot

Never said you could not. But if two people disagree on what is right or wrong in the area of say adultry and they vehemently disagree, which opinion should we accept as right or wrong moral or immoral. This is where the nonsense of so called subjective morality reveals itself. Hence it is a clear indication that the word morality is a contrivance in the mind with no hope of resolution in critical thinking. How will you avoid the conclusion of this realityI could end the discussion here with no fear of contradiction. I already did this in substance and in parts throughout the thread. Most recently I repeated it in my last post to Ringo in some detail Well it sounds like you just contradicted yourself. First you say our imaginations are not real, then you say they are real in some sense. So which is it Modulous, they are real or not. But I'll play along. I guess you didn't pay attention the first time.
Describing the thing that actually exists as an Apple, does not mean that's what it is in reality. You just gave it that name. It also does not give it more meaning. You've just decided to give it that description.Now watch. Giving human or animal behaviors titles as good, bad, right, wrong, moral or immoral, does not mean that description is what they are. Your opinions about human and animal behavior don't actually give them more meaning in reality. Just like the word apple, the term moral is something you made up. It has no hope of being real anymore than the word apple. What if in reality the word apple is not an accurate description of it, would it matter to matter?How muchless hope do you have of ACTUALLY describing what is ACTUALLY, right or wrong in a rational way. Notice I said in a rational way, not from an opinion standpoint. Yes I can explain a tree, but that does not make the tree, good or bad, moral or immoral. There is no way to ascribe those types of meanings to biological processess, whether it a person or a tree. I could as easily apply an imaginary moral opinion to a tree and it would have as much actual application, in reality, as you applying it to human behavior.Here's an example. Is your imagination of thier behavior, good or bad, right or wrong. How would you decide even that. If you say to me it's good, the next person says it's wrong, we quickly see this nothing more than making words up like apple to describe things. The word apple is no more real than the word morlality. It's a hope less proposition. Thats assuming in your universe I'm even right about what I'm saying. Heck, rational may not even be rational No you missed the point. I was not saying you were saying that indeed. I was saying that was the logical conclusion of a subjective morality. In other words in doesn't matter how you describe it because your descriptions are not what it actually is or is not. Well no imagining your moral reaction is not different from having your moral reaction. But that's a cavil. I'll play along. You have no way of demonstrating in any real way adultery is right or wrong to describe it as anything more than imaginary thing as moral or immoral
, In the first place. Having an emotional reaction to it and Attaching a word like moral is secondary to actually showing it is actually right or wrong in the first place. In fact there are people who think adultery is not even a real thing or itsnot right or wrong in the first place.Which ones of yous guys moral reactions are actually real, or are they all ok. Or do I just decide this for myself. How can there be any hope for an actual right or wrong or morality to exist in any rational way outside of the infinite wisdom of God. That's assuming there is a rational way of establishing what is rational, or is that just another moral reaction or imagination I should form for myself. I don't know why you think the injection of emotions or feeling will help your proposition. You would actually have to know adultery was wrong, to have an emotional reaction. Otherwise your just having an emotional reaction to something that may or may not be wrong. Who knows in your world, correct?Dawn Bertot