Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Well no you are incorrect in reality. What I did KNOW, is that you were going to say that. It's a natural conclusion of your position, in an effort to maintain that which is irrational, namely, that subjective morality, actually exists. Well of course, reality is right, objectively speaking. Did you imagine that you asked a difficult question, Modulous. Your imaginations of tastiness would have no meaning or perception, if you had no objective thing to put in your mouth correct?One can imagine the possibilty of an irrational thing, like the concept of subjective morality, but one cannot imagine that which is logically impossible, namely what an actual subjective morality would look like in reality. Reason and reality won't allow it. Of course I was speaking from your perspective and for argument sake , repersenting your position. Hence , no moral, just instinct. Well of course I have. In parts in the whole thread, then most recently in my last post to Newcatseye But Modulous, this imaginary deity, as you so loosely describe him, is warranted by both reason and reality. For that which we know about conscience and consciouness, including morality, makes no rational sense without him. That's if your interested in being rationalEven if this were true, it does not mean that I am not establishing my position, in a rational way, from the standpoint of reality. In this instance, this imaginary deity is a logical necessary conclusion, of the rational, that only allows, subjective morality to exist, if objective morality actual exists. Anything else is a logical impossibiltiy. And here, is where the fallacy of your position, is demonstrated without any doubt. . Is it absolutely true that ownership is the standard by which we know if someone else takes it, it is actually stealing. Of course, you will answer no, its not, in some relativistic subjective sense. Which means that ownership is not the standard, therefore no ACTUAL stealing has taken place. Possibly I guess I'll have to wait for the answerAre there any other conditions besides ownership that would make stealing stealing. Nope you can't even get started rationally. Your above statement is wrong on so many levels, because it is irrational from the outset. Subjective morality is a logical impossibility, within the context of a purely naturalistic enviornement. I've demonstrated this to many ways to mention nowDawn Bertot

Then it is obvious you are not willing to debate. Atleast Modulous is giving it a try, he is actually debating. Follow along there, then jump in as you see fit If this true, then it would follow that the ability to reason would be apart of those memes, correct. So from a logical standpoint, it would follow that subjective morality, existing in a strictly Naturalistic enviornment, is a logical impossibility. Subjective realites, whatever they maybe, have no hope of existence, without objective realities. Hence it would follow that subjective moralities did actually exist, they would need logically to be supported by something objective outside themself.If you think this is not the case then please explain how.. imagining the irrational is not the same as imaging that which is logically impossible. One is possible , one is not Outside of your imagination, there is no such thing as a square root, muchless the square root of....... For reasoning ability to exist, there needs to be outside your and myself objective realites, for reasoning to be capable. Certainly the mind has the ability to concieve, but it must of necessity be predicated by those realities. In fact they would make no rational sense otherwise. That's like asking me if I agree that a tree is a tree. You should have asked, do I agree that subjective moral concepts are a logical possibilty from an Atheistic standpoint. NoSure but only if they are actually predicated by an objective morality, otherwise they are a logical impossibilty. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.But I do like waffels. M mmmmmmm, waffelsDawn Bertot

In his debate with Dr. Wallace I Matson, Dr. Thomas B Warren, took offense at Dr Matson calling God a logical monster. Dr Matson explained he meant this from a standpoint of reason. While i do not agree with Dr Matsons tenets, we understood what he meant.I'm saying it is not logically possible for you to have that which you percieve you have , in a purely naturalistic enviornment. Actually you have morals you just miss apply the source of those morals, as not being from God.Dawn Bertot

Well that's an odd statement. Since I can't imagine a fear that is not predicated by something outside, maybe you could give an example of fear without that. But to answer your question, a lion chasing you arse, watching a scary movie. Need I go on You misunderstood, I was simply pointing out that, that those imaginations are not real, the way actual things are real. So imagining a subjective moral doesn't make it an actuality. My imagination of a tree does not have the same properties of an actual tree, correct? But slow or fast cars are things that happen actually in reality. Me imagining I'm flying over the countryside using nothing but my flapping arms, is not actually happening, even though ican see it in my mind. Hence we see that imaginations are not real the same way real things are real.
So ascribing concepts to behavior in reality, like good, bad, moral or immoral are just a product of the imagination.So while it is true you can imagine real and unreal things, you cannot imagine that which logically impossible, correct? And I'll wait for your example of an instance of fear where it is not produced by an outside effect. Well yes. Consciouness is a product of the objective reality of the universe. IOWS "they" say, it was created by evolution. So you have one physicl reality creating another physical reality.. But while that has a simple answer, it does point up the context of the of this whole discussion.So subjective imaginations can come from a objective reality, but just like there is no reality of me ACTUALLY me flying, using only my arms, it's just an imagination. Its not real. The concepts of right, wrong, good bad,, moral and immoral, are just the same. They don't actually exist in the real world, they are imaginationsThis is demonstrated even further by the fact that every imagination of good, etc, which doesn't actually exist, is just one of a million others. How could they be real in the first place, other than an imagination.So while i can point to the possible source of consciouness, that is far from demonstrating any imaginations are real things. So morality as described by Atheist can not exist from a rational standpoint. And that's only two of the problems.Dawn Bertot

Yes. Without the pineapple, there would be NO taste. With nothing to put in your mouth, there would be nothing to have taste or imagine tastiness, correct? So while the potential for your ability to taste at all, or to imagine tasiness, would exist as another objective reality, it would need to be predicated by an objective in reality, outside yourself, correct?So while the potential, does exist inside of you to measure or imagine levels of taste or tastiness, this would be called your brain, it would still need to be predicated by something coming into the brain, to measure both taste and tastiness. Your brain cannot produce taste or tastiness, without the outside influence., in this instance another outside objective reality.Since you have the ability to reason, this would be comparable to taste, correct. But for the taste mechanism to work, something needs to shoved or crammed into your mouth correct. The objective reality that gives you taste or tasiness is that outside objective reality. Without it you have nothingHence your brain has the ability to measure but not create the objective reality outside yourself. So bringing it together. So it seems that no matter how we approach it the brain can only measure or imagine subjective morality, but THIS ONLY WHEN it is already preceeded or predicated by objective morality.So it seems that one can imagine the irrational but one cannot imagine that which is logically impossible. I can imagine or percieve,the possiblity of a square circle, but I cannot actually even imagine what that would be. So it seems that I can imagine subjective morality, but I cannot even imagine what that would be without an objective standard.. Hence just an imagination of the irrational, but not the logically impossible.Subjective morality is it seems, a logical impossibility from a Atheistic perspective So reason and reality, combined with special revelation which conforms to reality concerning, consciousness and conscience, don't help you at all. Well I think we did show it false, unless you can show that things dont need to be shoved into the mouth. So it seems we will need some logical necessity otherwise.Dawn Bertot

Well yes Jar, that's kinda what Jesus was saying to begin with. So it seems you didn't understand his intentions or motivations. Which is pretty much Jar for the course. Maybe you got your modern general law from him. Think so?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Jar where you able to meet my challenge in bringing up any reputable scholars, that can, will and do support your explanation of biblical textsJar I don't know how we would proceed without your wisdomy wisdom. Your just such a special gift that none of us appreciateEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well you just keep repeating that I have not dealt with your arguments and I keep asking you for a single line or a single argument, where i have not done this and you just keep repeating that I havent. Again, will you please provide the line, the sentence, the alleged argument I have not addressed and I'm confident to show you that I actually have. Maybe you don't know how to respond, so you keep saying I haven't hoping no one will notice otherwise.Provide the line please. Since this is not what I'm doing it would follow logically that is not what I'm doing. Please provide the line or point you think I have not addressed. If you just keep REPEATING
That I havent, people will notice after awhile Wouldn't your time and writing been better spent in showing how, instead of just disagreeing. There you go again wasting your time. Time is precious RAZD. Show me how I was wrong. Your wasting my time, by me pointing out that your wasting your time and mine, having to respond to you wasting time I hope this doesn't sound mean, but I going to make an assumption that your not the brightest crayon in the box. So, are you taking it as true because it's true or for arguments sake?Secondly, if you are then you have given up your proposition admitting that subjective morality must not, of necessity, be predicated, on that which is objective. Which you claim in the first place.Thirdly, if your are assuming that reasoning ability is the objectivity on which subjective is predicated, you would still need to demonstrate that a humans reasoning abiltity, is more than any other objective reality. That is, that it alone, can actually create right and wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral.Since there are objective realities that are objective realities, but do not actually create, right or wrong, good or bad, if would follow, that even an objective reality,like that of thinking ability, LIMITED in mass amounts of knowledge, could not actually create a standard of right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral. So it's just another objective reality with limitationsFourthly, if this objective reality cannot actually create right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral, due to its limitations, then it would follow logically, that a 1000 people's differeing imaginations on a single observance of human behavior, would be no better in determine what is actually moral or immoralSo you are right back where you started. Not only that subjective morality is a logical contradiction, but that, Imaginations have no way of actually establishing what is actually right or wrong, even if you imagine that it as morality Since that is not what I was doing, it would follow that was not what I was doing. I fully agree that objective thinking ability is not objective MORALITY. You on the other hand, would need to establish that it has the ability to ACTUALLY create right, wrong, etc. Since it is clear that it cannot, you are still just imagining that subjective morality IS morality.Again you can imagine the possibilty of that which is selfcontradictory, but you cannot actually imagine what it is, you can't show it to me. So, you can imagine morality in the subjective, but you cannot actually show me what that is, because it's a logical contradiction, If no ACTUAL right and wrong exist, in the first place. This is what makes it impossible, like the square circle, it directly contradicts itself.How could you ever extricate yourself from this delimmaI can imagine human behavior and I can imagine, some imagined meaning attached to it, but, because there is no objective standard, you can't actually show me what subjective morality is actually. You can imagine good or bad behavior and that's imagining the irrational, but to say it's actually good or bad, right or wrong, is an impossibility, it's a logical impossibility.These are the two concepts you are confusing in your mind. Imagining, the irrational and the perception of that which is selfcontradictory contradictory, VERSES, actually being able to imagine what that is actually. Perhaps you could provide the line, statement or argument, where i have stated any of the last three in your contention, are actually my words. Secondly, I said subjective morality is a logical contradiction, you can't show it to me, other than to imagine it. I also said it could exist as an irrational perception, didn't i. But it has no hope of existing from a rational standpoint.You really should quit misrepresenting me RAZD.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well yes, duh. There could be no taste of a pineapple if one didn't exist correct? There has to be actual human and animal behavior before you can imagine it as good or bad, correct. But even if you imagine what is good or bad, you would need to establish the criteria of how you know it is actually right or wrong Why would you think I am rejecting the idea that ideas exist.. of course they do,but they can't actually create what is actually right and wrong, good or bad. Subjective ideas don't qualify because they are a logical contradiction. Ideas exist, subjective ideas do not. It's like calling something reverse prejudice, no its just prejudice. So ideas yes, subjective ideas no.This is why I said early on, attaching meaning to human or animal behavior in the mind, doesnt actually give it more meaning. This is imagining that which is irrational, imagining it as right or wrong, actually, is only the perception of that which is impossible.

Don't mean to sound unkind or uncaring, but those above statements and questions are horribly simplistic. It does matter whether subjective morality does or does not exist. It matters if it can exist from a purely rational standpoint. It cant, it's a self contradiction. There is no such thing as Atheistic morality except in imaginations. One can imagine that subjective moralites exist, but you cannot show me actually what that is, for the MANY many reasons I have set out.There is nothing to contrast theistic morality with, that is nothing more than imagination Again a nonsensical question. You first need to establish rationally you have a morality to compare it with anything. Here is an example. Let's say there are Atheists that believe that morals don't exist, subjective or otherwise, which of you would be correct, right or wrong, good, bad correct or incorrect. It would just be one of you slapping a word on human behavior and the other guy choosing not to it. Subjective morality can't exist it a logical contradiction.Since you have no way of showing me the criteria of how you established what is actually right or wrong, ACTUALLY, you would be at a complete loss to show me what is actually subjective morality. This is why it is a logical contradiction. Sorry Ringo that's just the way it is, no two ways (subjective morality) about it.Dawn Bertot

Hardly. There is no such thing as a moral being subjective. It doesn't exist, it's a logical contradiction. You first need to demonstrate that the objective thinking process can create actually that which is actually right, wrong, good, bad, for your Socalled subjective to have menaing. Example show me what you believe is a subjective moral. Then I'll show you all I need to do is bring in 12 other people, with a different, now watch the word, perspective on that same thing to demonstrate it's only an imagination with no consistency, therefore nothing qualifying as actual, good, bad, right or wrong, actually.The mind can only imagine the possibility of the impossible, it can't create it, no matter how much it may try to imagine it Again notice all of these are predicated on things that exist in reality or things you have experienced in the past. So no, these don't exist by themselves.So once again we have an objective reality with another subjective morality, but no subjective morals, since fear is not a thing that is right or wrong, good or bad. Even if we allow it all people's fears are different, hence can't be described as subjective morality. If it is, who's fears do we use to decide what is actually moral Until you can actually show me a subjective moral acually and until you can show it doesn't involve a logical contradiction Well not excally, it involves a logical contradiction. So I would get busy demonstrating why the things I shown where it involves a logical contradition, are indeed invalid. The first one would be showing why it's anything more or less than anybody else's opinion. That should keep you busy for a while.Dawn Bertot

Correct, very good. But your unique and subjective perspective, which is your brain, doesn't have the ability create a thing called good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. Since you use this brain , and subjective perspective, as you call it, to evaluate what might be good, bad,right and wrong, you would first need to establish how you decided that these things are actually, good, bad right and wrong.If you can't and I see no way you can, and it won't help to say , well I don't need to, you immediately involve yourself in a self contradiction. IOWS if you are going to use your own perspective, to decide, we immediately see that falls apart logically in deciding what is right and wrong, due to the fact that there are as many perspectives as there are people. So your right back where you started, trying to create or imagine, something that cannot eixst, ie, right and wrong, without an absolute definition or reality of those principlesSo while objective realities exist and perspectives exist,it is not logically possible, for subjective right and wrong to exist, without an objective right and wrong. That would involve a logical contradiction, since there is absolutely no way, and the criteria cannot be brought forward to show how right and wrong could be established, to know what is right or wrong subjectivelyTastiness won't work as an example because it is just another perspective and I'm pretty sure it has no properties to let us know how right and wrong are actually right and wrong.I'm sure even monkeys and dolphins have the ability to percieve things to a certain extent. But neither monkeys, dolphins or humans, have the ability or the means to know what is ACTUALLY right or wrong, to know what is, subjective or otherwise.So, what the Atheist actually has is, the ability to, imagine the possibility of that which is in reality, logically impossible. But he has no way to actually show us what that is, without direct self-contradictionSo no matter how convincing our perceptions are, they can at times,, allow us to imagine the prospect of something that is, logically impossible, but showing us what that is from a rational standpoint, simply falls apart. So it remains only an imagination or perspectiveDawn Bertot

Well I'm sure you don't need these experts, it gives you occasion to make up and believe whatever you want. And how dare we ever consider anyone's position but Jars, no matter how absurd and ridiculous Did anyone ever bother to explain to you, what is involved in a logical contradiction? If they didn't I can, if they did you might pull it out of your past, it's applicable here. I will be happy to do this if you will read and or re-read the gospels and listen to what Jesus had to say about truth, truth in connection with himself and the claims he made concerning himself. Claims that no other person, philosopher, teacher or prophet made.
Like, " 24Martha replied, I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.25Jesussaidto her,Iamthe resurrectionandthelife.He whobelievesinMewill live,even thoughhe dies.26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"Do you believe this JarDawn BertotEdited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Well know absolutely not, no pun intended. Knowing that absolute morality exists is as simple as knowing that absolute knowledge exists. Not understanding why you think, it's necessary to understand all the facets of absolute morality, without knowing that it can exist. The expression, "anyway of knowing what absolute morality would be", kinda doesn't make much sense. Since there could be No knowledge, or some knowledge, I'm not sure why we couldn't understand what complete or absolute knowledge, would be.
Instead of making that assertion, I would think you would need to set it out in argument form, for me to accept that conclusion This of course would involve a logical contradiction, that which is self contradictory. Therefore nonexistent. It's not that I don't understand the human invention and definition of the word subjective, but then there are those things called reality and rational. Regardless of the contrived definition or meaning anyone ascribes to the word,it is afterall just a word.. In this instance however, you are conjoing two words that involve themselves In a logical contradiction.Even if I granted that there was such a thing as subjective morality, then it would be incumbent on you to show what is absolutely Right and absolutely Wrong. For if you could not, then it would follow that subjective morality does NOT actually exist. Ascribing the word perspectives or imaginations, to human behaviors, is not the same as ascribing the Word morality., Good or BadThat's why the words, perspective and imaginations have different meaning than the words, morality, good or bad. You are trying to make them mean the same things, they dont.For example, if an atheist accuses God of immoral behavior, he or she is implying that God is not Good or God is Wrong. He or she is indirectly implying that they KNOW , what Good or BAD actually are or are not. If not, there would be no way or need to accuse in the first place.So it would follow that subjective morality does not actually exist or at worst , it involves itself in a logical contradiction. Reason and reality trump the word subjective and especially the concept, subjective moralityDawn Bertot