Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 9:36 PM
439 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, jar, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes (6 members, 433 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,969 Year: 6,575/21,208 Month: 2,336/2,634 Week: 524/572 Day: 10/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
303132Next
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 421 of 478 (801539)
03-07-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Dawn Bertot
03-07-2017 6:59 AM


Re: Absolutes
Dawn B writes:

Being an Atheist, a person void of ACTUAL morality

Woah.....you believe that I have no morality? That I'm immoral?

Is this just another one of your brainfarts or do you really mean it?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 6:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 422 of 478 (801540)
03-07-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by 1.61803
03-07-2017 10:25 AM


Re: Does Prehistoric rape exist?
1.6... writes:

It is my belief that there is such a thing as universal taboos.

I used a example of a Neanderthal stalking a female and copulating with her by force.

Those who I was having this discussion with contended that the concept of "Rape" has yet to be invented therefore rape did not exist.
Nor does rape exist in the animal world.

I think this is a bit confused, the concept of rape may not have existed - who knows - but the concept of harm will have certainly existed.

Neanderthals were social creatures and will have developed norms of behaviour within their tribes. It may be that abduction and rape was ok between tribes but not within them. It may be that the dominant male had sole rights of reproduction. We don't know, but we can say with a strong degree of certainty that social rules would have been developed. Some of them are likely to be abhorrent to us, some recognisable today.

Societies form their own rules that allow them to co-operate. 'Twas always thus.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by 1.61803, posted 03-07-2017 10:25 AM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by jar, posted 03-07-2017 12:19 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28433
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 423 of 478 (801541)
03-07-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Tangle
03-07-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Does Prehistoric rape exist?
Also for most of history and in many cultures women were simply chattel, like cattle or goats or sheep. The idea of human rights is a fairly modern one from almost all aspects.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2017 12:01 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 424 of 478 (801543)
03-07-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Dawn Bertot
03-07-2017 6:59 AM


Re: Absolutes
DB writes:

In a purely naturalistic enviornment Jack's actions would be no different than you running down the chicken to ring his neck. You are just imagining his actions as Wrong and yours as somehow moral.

Hohum. Here we go again. Did you imagine that if you repeated this claptrap often enough we'd suddenly agree with it?

I, you and everyone else here 'imagines' that Jack's actions are wrong.

Depending on whether you're a vegitarian or not, we'd also have no difficulty eating chicken.

But nobody but a loon would equate the actions of Jack the Ripper with the actions of someone that enjoys a KFC. We are carnivores, carnivores eat meat. God made us that way according to you. (Strictly speaking we're omnivores but the point still stands.)

So where do you think that gets you?

What mental moral principle allows you to kill and eat the chicken, without any feeling of guilt and or immorality.

The fact that our biology allows it and at most points in our development has required it. If I was a herbivore I wouldn't eat chicken.

Now what's really interesting is that I can imagine a time in the future where killing and eating animals will be regarded as immoral. We will grow our protein in vitro. Our view of what's moral in our food will have changed.

I dont suppose you will For good to be actually good it has to come from a source outside the human mind

Demonstrably false.

Now, I've asked you three times for an example of this absolute morality of yours. Where is it? Where is this moral that comes from a outside the human mind?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 6:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-08-2017 6:23 AM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 425 of 478 (801545)
03-07-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Dawn Bertot
03-07-2017 7:01 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
Why would i need to move on to what the problem is when it's right here. Adultery cannot be actually wrong in reality, if it's only in sense which people think it's immoral.

Right. So what's the problem?

If numerous people have numerous views on the very same subject, ie adultery as right or wrong, then that's nothing real just a bunch of imaginations.

And this can't be true because...?

If you are agreeing with me, then it would follow you are incorrect?

Only if you are incorrect, obviously.

The objective to your subjective taste, is taste itself. So if there is an subjective taste it is predicated by an actual thing called taste correct.

There is no such thing as 'taste itself'. Sorry to burst that bubble, I thought you knew?

If everything we see and know subjectively is predicated by the objective, why would you assume your subjective is not.

I don't. Just as the taste of something is dependent on the shape of the molecules within the thing, and the pattern of neurons in my brain - so to is my view of morality dependent on the specific nature of actions in question and my neuronal patterns. They are both equally predicated by the objective.

Beauty, tasty, lovely, sexy. They don't exist 'out there' for me to perceive them.

I say pineapple tastes horrible.
My wife says it tastes lovely.

Who is right? Objectively speaking?

You know instinctively that stealing is wrong and lying is wrong.

Evolved instincts are a large part of my argument yes, but not the whole picture. Your Message 1 explicitly states 'this is not a moral it's an Instinct'. You don't seem to have a consistent position on this.

You know this by that which was put there by God.

If you can prove this, you win the argument. I say it was put there by evolution. I have at least shown how this can happen. You have not done the same with God.

However, you know also instinctively that preference is not category of right and wrong, but just a preference.

Wrong. I know right and wrong are preferences. Prove otherwise to win.

The only way for subjective morality to exist is for objective morality to exist.
And if you could show that to be true, you win the argument.
I just did.

No you didn't.

Fortunately my concepts of morals are reason and reality based, yours are imaginations and perceptions

You have an imaginary deity in yours.

I have brains and behaviour and environment. All these are real things.

Arguing that subjective morals coming from and evolved brain and a sense of behavioral cooperating in nature is not the same as demonstrating that subjective morality exists in reality.

Well no, that stuff explains morality.

The fact that you and I disagree about whether stealing is always immoral demonstrates that subjective morality exists in reality.

It's ironic that you claim that your subjective morals come from natural processes, because, Now Watch. The very subjective morals you claim came from that process DON'T APPLY to those poor creatures.

What poor creatures?

But to be fair to me and the audience, please just put your best line or argument from that material out and we will see if I haven't responded to it in a rational way.

See 'the animals dilemma' for my explanation for how moral behaviours can evolve.

Logically and rationally stealing would have no meaning, if the there was no standard by which to measure it.

There is a standard by which to measure it: ownership.

You are faced with the horrible conclusion that every person and every persons imaginations about what stealing might be, Could ACTUALLY BE CORRECT, or incorrect at the same time

Everytime you've made this claim, I point out that actually my conclusion is that NO PERSON'S concepts about immoral actions are correct OR incorrect.

Modulous, factual statements are always true if they are factual. That would make them an objective reality. Things exist, is an actual factual objective reality. My perceptions of how and why may be Wong or misguided, but it doesn't change the reality.

Agreed. Again.

So when I have an omnipotent, omniscient, morally absolute being saying thou shalt not steal, then that statement is an objectively true statement

Agreed. It's a shame you don't have such a thing or your argument would be won.

Lying is always wrong because it is against or in opposition to the absolute truth.

I see no reason to suppose that being against absolute truth is intrinsically immoral.

We can witness non cooperative strategies in nature as well, if i wish to describe them as such, that doesn't make them wrong or bad, just junk happening.

Correct. What makes them wrong or bad is our opinion of them.

Your OPINIONS about them being moral or immoral are just that, opinions. Nothing more

Agreed. And moralities are just opinions, nothing more.

However, if you want to sink deeper into the quagmire of mean-spiritedness I will call you out on it each time.

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Really.

And this is,I maintain and have seen no evidence to the contrary, is a logical impossibility.

You haven't shown it yet, sorry.

You can't get ethics or morals from biological processes, that aren't going to be anything but irrational, inconsistent subjective, relative and therefore nothing more than imaginations.

And indeed, that's what we've got.

Since they are steeped in the irrational and hopelessly inconsistent, then it would follow they don't actually exist, correct?

No.

For something to be irrational, then there must exist the rational correct?

No.

So no objective morality, then logically no subjective morality. That makes perfect sense

No.

You disagreeing is not the same as proving I haven't atleast set it out in a rational way

Agreed. But the fact that you haven't set it out in a rational way speaks to this quite aptly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 7:01 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 1:44 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 437 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-08-2017 6:24 AM Modulous has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9260
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 426 of 478 (801546)
03-07-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Modulous
03-07-2017 1:24 PM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
Mod writes:

The fact that you and I disagree about whether stealing is always immoral demonstrates that subjective morality exists in reality.

Lemme see if I can break this down:

  • Dawns basic argument is that God exists.(Premise #1) objective morality is defined by God as is subjectivity itself.(Conclusion #1) The problem with Dawns position is that he is trying to use what he believes as objective reality(God) to win the argument against the reality of subjectivity having any validity.

  • Mods basic response...as well as others...is that Dawn cannot prove that God exists even though objective morality as a belief proves it through the Bible.
    Dawn needs to provide evidence for his stance.

    Or put another way...even if I or anyone else can lay out a framework for objective reality(as a belief) we ourselves are inescapably subjective in our position...given that we are not God.

    Dawn writes:

    So when I have an omnipotent, omniscient, morally absolute being saying thou shalt not steal, then that statement is an objectively true statement


    Mod writes:

    Agreed. It's a shame you don't have such a thing or your argument would be won.

    In other words, IF God exists, God wins. You are not God. Thus...you can no more claim objectivity than I can.

    Does anyone see my attempt at making a point?

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 425 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2017 1:24 PM Modulous has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 427 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2017 2:07 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 429 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2017 2:19 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 430 by jar, posted 03-07-2017 2:21 PM Phat has responded

      
  • Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 4406
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.9


    (1)
    Message 427 of 478 (801549)
    03-07-2017 2:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 426 by Phat
    03-07-2017 1:44 PM


    Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
    Phat writes:

    Dawns basic argument is that God exists.(Premise #1) objective morality is defined by God as is subjectivity itself.(Conclusion #1) The problem with Dawns position is that he is trying to use what he believes as objective reality(God) to win the argument against the reality of subjectivity having any validity.

    Er no. Modulus will unpick it all for you but your conclusion is a premise. It also does not follow that if a god exists he has any input to morality or that if he did, that we wouldn't find this god immoral ourselves. A god does not have to be moral nor objective.

    Dawn's edicts are nothing more than bald assertions that are proven wrong by reality. All he's saying is that he believes in the Christian god of the bible. Well so what? He can't even give us a real world example of an absolute moral.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 426 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 1:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7383
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 428 of 478 (801550)
    03-07-2017 2:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 420 by 1.61803
    03-07-2017 10:25 AM


    Re: Does Prehistoric rape exist?
    I believe just because there were yet any "laws"against it or that the word itself was not yet uttered, prehistoric rape existed. I could be wrong, but that's just how I see things.

    Rape is a verb. It means, basically, to have sexual relations without the consent of the party you having those relations with. It exists regardless of law, just as much as sleeping or running exists without language.

    Whether or not that is taboo depends. Is that person an enemy soldier? Many people in history would regard that as 'their just desserts'. Is that person a woman of a conquered region? Many people in history would have regarded that as the just rewards for the conquerors.

    Even if we all agree that rape is unpleasant for the raped, that doesn't mean we have always, or will always agree on

    a) The moral status of the rapist
    b) Whether it is, in fact, rape (see marital rape).

    This speaks to the subjective nature of morality verses a unwritten code of what seems to be universal taboos and a quasi-objective morality.

    I would agree with a quasi-objective morality. We are social animals and we've evolved with an instinctual understanding that we have to 'get along' with some group or another. But what 'getting along with' actually means varies by so much there is little that is 'hard-wired', and most of it is learned behaviour.

    We are evolved to 'do right' by our allies, and to either avoid 'doing wrong' by them - or at least to avoid detection in our wrongs against them. Likewise we are evolved to 'reward' or 'punish' those in our group that do right and wrong by us.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 420 by 1.61803, posted 03-07-2017 10:25 AM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

        
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7383
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005
    Member Rating: 2.8


    (1)
    Message 429 of 478 (801551)
    03-07-2017 2:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 426 by Phat
    03-07-2017 1:44 PM


    Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
    Dawns basic argument is that God exists.(Premise #1) objective morality is defined by God as is subjectivity itself.(Conclusion #1)

    Almost. It might be broken down as

    P1: God exists
    P2: God defines what is moral
    C: Our subjective perspectives on morality can be right or wrong but are themselves not morality.

    Mods basic response...as well as others...is that Dawn cannot prove that God exists even though objective morality as a belief proves it through the Bible.
    Dawn needs to provide evidence for his stance.

    Not quite.

    The statement 'objective morality as a belief proves it through the Bible.' doesn't mean anything at all.

    My response is actually:

    I can explain morality without the need for God or any property of objective morality existing outside of our minds. If you think I am wrong, and that God is needed - show this. Asserting is insufficient.

    A secondary argument exists that even if God exists and even if an objective morality exists, we have no direct access to it and have no way of knowing what it is. Therefore, all we have to work with is our subjective opinions about it anyway.

    Or put another way...even if I or anyone else can lay out a framework for objective reality(as a belief) we ourselves are inescapably subjective in our position...given that we are not God.

    Yes, but this is just an aside - an important one. The issue is that Dawn believes the atheist/naturalist/existentialist position can be proven wrong logically. It's just the logic being employed appears to presuppose the existence of objective morality, so it fails due to circular reasoning or 'petitio principii'. Dawn doesn't recognize this as Dawn is so wrapped up in the certainty of the belief that objective morality obviously exists Dawn does not realize the conclusion has sneaked into the premises at all.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 426 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 1:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 28433
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 430 of 478 (801552)
    03-07-2017 2:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 426 by Phat
    03-07-2017 1:44 PM


    Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
    I can see what you are trying to market but unfortunately the Bible as is so often the case says differently. The God of the Bible does not exhibit absolute morality but rather absolute tyranny. In the Bible stories anything God does is permitted. That is not a statement of morality but rather power. When the question of morality does come up in the Bible it is presented as subjective and not absolute.

    Genesis 18 writes:

    16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

    20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

    22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

    26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

    27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

    “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

    29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

    He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

    30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

    He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

    31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

    He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

    32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

    He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

    33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 426 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 1:44 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 431 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 4:18 PM jar has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9260
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 431 of 478 (801556)
    03-07-2017 4:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 430 by jar
    03-07-2017 2:21 PM


    Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
    Are you suggesting that the Creator of all seen and unseen has chosen to allow humanity to determine morality on their own? Furthermore, are you suggesting that God would rather we learn how to behave rather than simply telling us objectively the definition of behavior?

    If so, why the need for commandments?

    I can see Dawns basic argument that human definition, opinion, and a consensus is irrelevant as it is subjective and thus meaningless.

    You, on the other hand, are laying out a case from the Bible that God expected humanity to be responsible for its own destiny.

    Am I close?


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 430 by jar, posted 03-07-2017 2:21 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 432 by jar, posted 03-07-2017 4:42 PM Phat has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 28433
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 432 of 478 (801561)
    03-07-2017 4:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 431 by Phat
    03-07-2017 4:18 PM


    Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
    Phat writes:

    Are you suggesting that the Creator of all seen and unseen has chosen to allow humanity to determine morality on their own? Furthermore, are you suggesting that God would rather we learn how to behave rather than simply telling us objectively the definition of behavior?

    No, I'm saying that that is what the Bible stories tell us again and again and again. Look at Genesis 3:

    the God character in Genesis 3 writes:

    22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

    Phat writes:

    If so, why the need for commandments?

    That's a great question particularly since the various commandments seem to always get broken, quite often by the God character.

    Thou shalt not kill (except when you are killing all the first born sons in Egypt or everything on the earth except the folk in the ark or except for the people living in Sodom or Gomorrah or except when told to by the Fuhrer)

    Phat writes:

    I can see Dawns basic argument that human definition, opinion, and a consensus is irrelevant as it is subjective and thus meaningless.

    But of course Dawn is demonstrably wrong. The human definition, opinion, and a consensus is subjective but also useful and used and thus does have meaning.

    Dawn is simply willfully ignorant and totally out of touch with reality by choice.

    Phat writes:

    You, on the other hand, are laying out a case from the Bible that God expected humanity to be responsible for its own destiny.

    Not really. I am saying that the difference between the morality displayed in the Bible (except that it is not at all up to modern standards) is not that one is absolute while the other is subjective. They are both subjective but the morality of the God of the Bible is simply not even close to a minimal moral standard found in the US today.


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 431 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 4:18 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 433 by Phat, posted 03-08-2017 6:05 AM jar has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9260
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 433 of 478 (801580)
    03-08-2017 6:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 432 by jar
    03-07-2017 4:42 PM


    Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
    Would you argue that the charge is objective or subjective?

    (The charge that everyone has to try and do their best)

    Is your best the same as my best? Is Faiths best different from both of us? Can Tangle quantify what his best should be?

    Even if we can behave better than the God of the Bible, what about Jesus? (Some argue that He personifies the God of the Bible better than the OT stories....)

    Surely modern day morality is not at a higher standard than the son of David personified....


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 432 by jar, posted 03-07-2017 4:42 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 438 by jar, posted 03-08-2017 6:56 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 460 by ringo, posted 03-09-2017 11:12 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Dawn Bertot
    Member
    Posts: 3570
    Joined: 11-23-2007


    Message 434 of 478 (801581)
    03-08-2017 6:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 418 by RAZD
    03-07-2017 9:26 AM


    Re: Crickets? Unwilling or Unable to answer?
    If you have enough time to write other posts you have enough time to answer  YES or  NO, so that should mean only Unwilling to answer ...

    Well I was actually giving you time to respond to my last extensive post to yourself, I was giving you the moral obligation to respond to the arguments I set out. But of course, if forgot that u fellas have subjective morality, which means you make up your rules as you go along. So instead of answering my response to the question you ask me, you ask me yet another question. ,let's not forget about the last post I made to you, before we get to far out alright.

    No I do not agree that morals are concepts, because concepts or imaginations do not have the ability to create something that does not already exist. Calling it a moral is just another way of describing imaginations. This of course is if we are talking about a purely naturalistic enviornment. Even if I did agree they were, they would be hopelessly lost in irrational inconsistency to qualify as any kind of standard to be described as morality.

    So now I have answered your second question, please go backwards and answer my previous post.

    Dawn Bertot


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 418 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2017 9:26 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 439 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2017 7:57 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

        
    Dawn Bertot
    Member
    Posts: 3570
    Joined: 11-23-2007


    Message 435 of 478 (801583)
    03-08-2017 6:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 419 by New Cat's Eye
    03-07-2017 9:43 AM


    Re: How?
    Yeah, I just wish that you would have participated. Instead, you just repeated the same old refuted nonsense over and over again.

    It's too bad you were unable to move the discussion forward in any way.

    From the OP until now, your point been the same: morality must be objective and it cannot be subjective.

    Unfortunately for you, you have been able to convince exactly nobody, and you've been unable to provide a valid argument for your case.

    In spite of repeated attempts to make progress in the discussion, you have simply repeated your same position in different words - and trashing the English language in the process.

    It is sad you cannot see an argument when it is presented to you. So while you are going out the door, so to speak, I'll try it again. Consciousness and conscience clearly exist. Since they do, there must be a source from which they are derived. I have demonstrated it is impossible to have subjective realites without objective realites. Hence it would follow that anything described as a moral in a subjective way, would of course require an objective moral.

    Secondly I demonstrated there is no way to make that which proceeds from Soley the imagination, actually real, in reality. If there is only one thing I can imagine that is not real as a result of the imagination, then it would follow that all that comes from the imagination, is in reality not real

    Thirdly. I demonstrated that even if one imagines that the things in the imagination as real, they have no hope of ascribing any meaning to physical properties, that property does not already possess.

    Fourthly I demonstrated that even if one imagines that perception are real because they exist in our minds, they are hopelessly lost in establishing any standard of morality, subjective or otherwise, due to the fact that they are quagmired in hopeless inconsistency, relating to both the human species and the animal kingdom. Hence, now watch, you are right back to the problem of them being nothing more than imagination

    Fithly, I demonstrated that while one can imagine that which is irrational, one cannot imagine that which is a logical impossibilty. Hence, while one can imagine a subjective morality, that which is irrational, without objective morality, one could not imagine and demonstrate logically that an actual subjective morality exists, in reality, which is in actuality, a logical impossibilty, without the existence of an objective morality.

    So while on can imagine that which is irrational and or improbable, one cannot ever imagine a logical impossibilty. A subjective morality, without the need for an objective morality, is a logical impossibility. It's just an imagination of the irrational

    Since, however, we know that consciouness and conscience do exist, it follows that they cannot come from an strictly, Atheistic, Naturalistic enviornment. This is a logical impossibilty, given thier contentions.

    Hence, thier source must come from a source outside the strictly Naturalistic enviornment. Theism provides and explains, and is consistent with the existence of consciouness and conscience. It explains this in a rational way, that is free of speculation or conjecture. Further the Judeo-Christian doctrines as contained in the bible, explain in detail, that only an infinte God, infinte in wisdom can make sense of morality, whether in a objective or subjective manner.

    Further those scriptures, give specific detail of how the mind, conscience and objective morality work in harmony, to make what we see, feel and know, consistent, with what we see in reality. It provides a platform for the obvious existence of morals

    Further, it expalins, why we know somethings instinctively, ie, that muder, stealing and lying are always wrong. It explains that these things are there as a result of an intrinsic law God had previously put inside of man. Hence the scriptures correspond to what we see in reality.

    Further, they explain what we already know, that truth is knowable. Since it is possible to come to Truths by using critical thinking pitted against realites, truth is obviously knowable. The scriptures tell that truth is knowable. Hence, the scriptures correspond to what we see and know in reality. And the human existence

    Hence, Theism and the scriptures provide a framework, that explains in detail, what is rationally knowable and it is consistent with what we, see, feel, know and can experience In the real world.

    On the other hand, Atheism, has no hope of explaining these things, in any rational manner, as I have demonstrated. Notice I said in a rational way, not just based on thier faulty perceptions.

    Dawn Bertot


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 419 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2017 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 441 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2017 9:44 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

        
    RewPrev1
    ...
    2728
    29
    303132Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017