|
Author
|
Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality. So what?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 3:56 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: nazis
Perceptions, idea, thoughts and concepts may be bio processes, but morality or truth would need to be something, outside and independent of those processes, much like Jars BLT illustration. His illustration has no purpose without a reality outside himself. And what if morality is not objective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: nazis
And what if morality is not objective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves? Then it would be blind evolution or just matter in motion. Morality would be a made up word Right, just like beauty, or deliciousness, or fun. So what? Why do you have such a problem with that?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 194 by jar, posted 02-10-2017 9:58 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied | | | Message 199 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:10 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: nazis
+ And what if morality is not objective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves? Then it would be blind evolution or just matter in motion. Morality would be a made up word Right, just like beauty, or deliciousness, or fun. So what? Why do you have such a problem with that? Then you admit Morality does not exist and you have no way of explaining it Not at all; or do you also claim that beauty, deliciousness, and fun do not exist either? They all would exist, and could be explained, they would just be subjective. Being subjective is not being non-existent, nor is it unexplainable. You're just saying that because they are not objective then they don't really exist, but that's not true. They just exist differently. Basically, your argument boils down to: "subjective things are not objective". We all agree with that, it's the "therefore they don't exist" part that is wrong.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
How?
Yes I claim given your no meaning universe, that those not only do not exist in reality, but they cannot. Why are you presupposing a no meaning universe? Meaning is in the mind of the beholder.
How would you show me the reality of a perception. If I were doing something I classified as fun, you would be able only to see a biological process happening, even if I were smiling. If I said it was fun and in the very same moment you said it is not, how could I convince you or show you what does not exist, namely my perception of funess. So we would both be right, both be wrong, one right the other wrong or it doesn't matter to matter. There's a word for that, it's called "subjective".
If morals are subjective, they don't actually exist and you have no possible way of demonstrating them in reality That's the argument that you are failing to support; that being subjective means not existing. The fact that it is not objective, and cannot be shown in reality, does not mean it doesn't exist. Subjective experiences exist in our minds.
Then show me in reality how, not just from your perception, but how they actually exist. We are talking about things that I perceive as feelings and emotions. They exist subjectively, not objectively, so I cannot point to them in reality to show you.
When you can do this,, then you'll demonstrate how your subjective perceptions of morality are real actually. Since they are nothing more than perceptions, they have no reality You're assuming your conclusion; that only objective things exist. That doesn't support your argument that subjective things don't exist. I can say that subjective things exist because here I am experiencing them (and saying so). We all have them. How can you deny that they exist?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
Not at all; or do you also claim that beauty, deliciousness, and fun do not exist either? Yes I claim given your no meaning universe, that those not only do not exist in reality, but they cannot. Why are you presupposing a no meaning universe? Meaning is in the mind of the beholder. Because you assume that meaning has purpose in your mind. I'm not sure what you mean? Why would something being beautiful to me require assuming that meaning has a purpose in my mind? I mean: I see it, and I like it. That's beauty in my mind. Where's the "purpose"?
But your mind is nothing more than a biological process, the thoughts that proceed from the process are biological side affects. I'd contend against it being "nothing more" than that, as the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but that's a little beside the point.
Now here's the point. If you could show that the universe is here for a reason or has some purpose, besides simply blind unaided processes, then you might have a way to show that anything you do has any meaning in the scheme of things. But how would you do this Nobody can show that, and yet, we all find meaning in our subjective experiences. How do you explain that?
That's the argument that you are failing to support; that being subjective means not existing. The fact that it is not objective, and cannot be shown in reality, does not mean it doesn't exist. Subjective experiences exist in our minds. Then you should be able to show me such things if they exist correct. No, I cannot show you what is in my mind.
Example, I can see the affects of anger, but anger does not exist in reality correct. It's simply a biological process. Now pay even closer attenion. While anger is a side affect of biological process, Concepts such as ethics or morals have less reality than anger and emotions. Again, there's a word for that: it's called "subjective".
But let's assume for the moment they could actually exist, that a concept actually existed. Hooray, progress!
Then the next step would be to validate it as right or wrong, good,or bad. Why? Why not just leave it at that: they are subjective experiences that exist. And we can't know if they are right or wrong, or good or bad.
And of course, if there as many concepts as there are people, that is that there could literally be as many so called alleged biological concepts, as there are people. Yes. They. Are. Subjective.
It doesn't make it it any better to talk about groups of people thinking the same thing , because there could be as many groups, nearly as people. Well, when we get groups of people thinking the same thing we can get consensus, and consilience. Those can be very convincing and impactful.
A moral or for something to be actually right or wrong, would need to have a standard. If it does not, it's as nonsensical to call it right or wrong, actually, as it would be to say things don't actually exist. No ,standard, no actual right or wrong. Sorry there is simply no way around that. A standard is only required if you need to have the morality be objective, or absolute. If you are willing to allow for a relative morality, that actually exists, then there is no need for the one standard rather everything becomes a standard in its own as another point of comparison. I don't need an ultimate standard on the morality of killing to come up with reasons for believing that it is less moral to kill a rabbit than it is a worm, and less moral to kill a human than it is a rabbit. You are correct that I cannot say that this rule of morality is the best one, or the right one, or even correct, but it is mine and it does exist. It's just that it is subjective rather than objective.
Well yeah that's what I was pointing out. Even if I agreed that subjective was a real thing and that I actually believed that, subjective would only be another way of describing natural processes. It is a logical impossibility for natural processes to have meaning by and in of themselves. Nature processes produce only natural processes. Since all processes are equal in a natural existence, there could naturally be nothing described as right or wrong, good or bad. Those terms can have no real or logical meanings. They have the meaning that we assign to them. For instance: That which is helpful we call good and that which is hurtful we call bad. We witness an event, determine if it is helpful or hurtful, and then say that it is good or bad. That, essentially, is morality. It is subjective and there is no one right or wrong answer. Or, if there is, nobody here can tell us anything about it.
But to be completely consistent, it would mean that NOTHING im saying now would be right or wrong, good or bad, correct other incorrect If your argument is self-defeating then that is your problem.
But then that would demonstrate my point further wouldn't it. By demonstrating that you can't truly make your point? Not really.
Throwing a word at alleged morals like subjective doesn't make them morals anymore that the word subjective is a real thing It's not that calling it subjective makes it real, that came about because you were arguing that non-objective things aren't real. It's that they are real, because we experience them, and since they are subjects of our minds rather than objects in our world, then they exist subjectively rather than objectively. Being non-objective does not mean that they don't exist.
They don't exist as having a meaning better or worse, good or bad, correct or incorrect, from any other biological process. So what?
There is no logical way for them to have that quality, in a meaningless purposeless universe. Sure there is: We assign them meaning. What meaning is there that we have not assigned? Can you show me, objectively, a meaning of something that a human did not bring? If not, then by your argument nothing has meaning. That is patently false. I mean, here we are having a conversation that is full of meaning.
You can imagine that from your imagination, that have a better meaning, but hats just imagination, like me imagining I'm REALITY and that I created everything. Doesn't make it real Being helpful or hurtful are real things that happen in the real world that we can observe. There is an objective basis for morality that ties it to the real world, but the meanings we assign to it and the determinations of right and wrong that we make are what is subjective. They are products of our minds. That doesn't make them non-existent.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
I'm not sure what you mean? Why would something being beautiful to me require assuming that meaning has a purpose in my mind? I mean: I see it, and I like it. That's beauty in my mind. Where's the "purpose"? Because it's simply an imagination, it cannot and does no actually exist. What does that have to do with a purpose? And what do you mean by "actually" existing such that imaginations aren't existing? Are you simply talking about existing "objectively"? Subjective experiences do exist, they just don't exist objectively.
If I imagined I WAS REALITY ITSELF and that I created everything, that would not make it real The fact that imagining some things does not make them real does not mean that an imagination, itself, is not a real thing. I can imagine an apple. That imagination exists as a thing in my mind. But it is not a real apple. Now, where's the purpose?
Nobody can show that, and yet, we all find meaning in our subjective experiences. How do you explain that? It's simple to explain, in the context of alleged morals. Meaning is as nonexistent as a concept or idea, in a strictly blind biological process. The universe itself would have to have some meaning, for other biological process to have meaning. So if the universe which actually exists has no meaning, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something that DOES Not exist, could actually have meaning. That doesn't tell me how you explain that we all find meaning in our subjective experiences?
The universe itself would have to have some meaning, for other biological process to have meaning. Wrong; Biological processes (brains thinking) can invent meanings within the universe even if the universe, itself, does not have some meaning.
Why? Why not just leave it at that: they are subjective experiences that exist. And we can't know if they are right or wrong, or good or bad. Ok, so from you position you are admitting that these things don't exist, correct? Of course not, for the n th time: they do exist, they are just subjective rather than objective.
If we don't characterize Morality as right or wrong, any action like stealing is perfectly ok correct. We characterize behaviors and actions as right or wrong within a particular context, and those characterizations are what a morality is. Stealing may be perfectly ok, for example, if you are feeding someone who is starving to death and there's no way around it. There is no objective or absolute morality where we can outline when and when it is not okay to steal. Its a case-by-case basis.
As I've demonstrated without fear of contradiction there is no such thing as relatively morality. I reject that you've demonstrated that. All morality is relative. There is nothing that we can identify as an objective morality. They all depend on the situation.
You've or anybody here has failed, to demonstrate that imaginations are actually real. Do you, or do you not, have an imagination? Is it nothing or is it something?
A standard is required if you want it to make any logical sense I'm sure you can see the nonsesne in your phrase, "everything becomes a Standard in or of its own". If everything is a standard and the standards differ contiuously, then of course there is no standard. A standard is only required for an objective or absolulte morality. But we can't know if one of those exists or not. We do know that relative moralies exist, everybody has one. Don't you have a morality? Can you demonstrate that it is objective? If not, why can't you accept that it is relative?
You don't get to make Morality whatever you want. No thinking person buys that kind of nonsense Every civilization throughout history has had a morality that they made. Thinking people buy this kind of sense all the time.
Even if you could demonstrate this in some ACTUAL way, your still left with the problem of showing IT as anything more than another biological process, in an already meaningless universe. The biological process of our brains thinking creates the meanings that form moralities.
Excellent. Now show me the relative standard, from you perspective, of why it is less moral to kill a worm than a rabbit. And how you came to that "conclusion". And I'll show you that your way of proceeding is nonsense. That's assuming nonsense is objective. Is it? Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it.
You are correct that I cannot say that this rule of morality is the best one, or the right one, or even correct, but it is mine and it does exist. It's just that it is subjective rather than objective. Your above statement is a self defeating statement it doesn't need my help to show it fallacious. As you corectly pointed out, everything becomes a standard. Unfortunarely, there is no way for that to make sense in reality If by "in reality", you mean "objectively", then I agree with there being no way for it to make sense. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It exists subjectively.
So I would ask again. Is it absolutely true that your above statement about subjective morality is true, indeed. Or is it true subjectively. It can't be both and make sense There is no such thing as an absolute truth except for this statement. So no, my statement about subjective morality is not absolutely true, but it is a truth nonetheless.
They have the meaning that we assign to them. For instance: That which is helpful we call good and that which is hurtful we call bad. So if you kill and eat animals, other life forms, that's helpful to you but hurtful to them. And if a cow eats grass then it's helpful to the cow but hurtful to the grass. Do you think cows are immoral? Do you think it is immoral to eat meat?
OR we don't know and have no real way of knowing or what. Oh I see, you mean that kind of relative morality We do have a real way of knowing: We experience and think about it and determine how it makes us feel and whether or not it is a good or bad thing.
Being helpful or hurtful are real things that happen in the real world that we can observe. There is an objective basis for morality that ties it to the real world, but the meanings we assign to it and the determinations of right and wrong that we make are what is subjective. They are products of our minds. That doesn't make them non-existent. And this is exactly why your morality does not exist in reality. If by "in reality" you only mean "objectively" then you are not disagreeing with me.
Being helpful and hurtful only get meaning when they help or hurt you. You do not ascribe,the same meaning when it comes to other species, or,even other humans at times. No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being.
Something being completely inconsistent and irrational most of,the time is still irrational and inconsistent, no matter what verbiage you attach to it or how you describe it. Being relative doesn't mean inconsistent. And it can be rationalized so it isn't irrational.
Even if they existed objectively, they cant be described as morality. The part, in this instance, your thought is not greater than that which created it. No way to show meaning in a real sense, since death cancels out your so called meaning. Death being another biological process, greater than even you small part of subjective morality, correct. Then there's the problem of you labeling it a moral. Moral is only a concept of the imagination, if there is nothing greater than the universe, with no meaning, this contrived verbiage is just that, contrived verbiage. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. But adding qualifiers like being "actually" real, or things being in a "real" sense, and that my explanations are "so called" meanings, is making it look like you are desperately trying to find some kind of difference that just isn't there. "Oh, yeah, that's real... but it's not really real!" 
Then of course there's the problem of having any kind of consistency. Assuming consistency, even matters in your subjective morality. Those two words together are like saying the Existence of nonexistence Only because you are operating under a false dichotomy that a morality has to be objective to be real.
I never said being nonobjective doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm saying that you are labeling something that may or may not exist as subjective, which means they may not actually exist. Subjective is a concept itself. Even if they did actually exist, that is a far cry from MAKING them a moral or morality. Morality is another concept you invented, which is not only inconsistent in your structure, but hopeless subjective, therefore all intents and purposes, nonexistent. You say that you are not saying that non-objective doesn't mean nonexistent, but then you go on to say that something is nonexistent because it is subjective. Pardon me for seeing you as confused and contradicting yourself.
Yes I can objectively show you that your meaning has no meaning, that's assuming meaning has meaning in your explanation of things as subjective. I can objectively show you that I'd meaning is Huh!?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
The imagination, even if it actually exists, is just another biological process. Because the imagined apple is not a real apple, means it can have no application in the real world as anything. After I imagine an apple, my mouth may water and I might become hungry. That's an application in the real world that an imaginary apple can have. How could an imaginary apple have an effect on the real world if it did not exist?
Morality, simply become an imagined thing, as we witness biological processes. Morality can have no actual existence, because it does not exist to begin with, subjective or objective, in a meaninless purposeless universe You're just repeating yourself... In a meaningless purposeless universe, thinking brains can create mental things that can affect the real world, and therefore actually exist albeit it subjectively. That is, they are subjects of our imagination rather than objects in the real world. They still exist, they just don't exist objectively.
You don't actually imagine an apple, that's simply the name you gave it. You are using your imagination to percieve a biological process described as an apple. There's a word for that, its called "subjective". Subjective things can exist even if they aren't objective. There is a state of the universe that corresponds to the imagination of an apple in my brain.
Hence imagining a morality by witnessing a physical process, is not an actual morality. Hence it is not possible for Atheists to have a morality. And if they can't have one,, then it is a foregone conclusion they cannot explain one In order for you to be correct, we all have to be using your own special definitions of words that none of us agree with. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it. You can't believe how hard I laughed when I read your above statement. So it would be ok to kill, mentally retarded people? No, that's retarded. It's not even logical.
So as I demonstrated earlier, your just making up a word or words, like morality in the form of harmful and hurtful that have no reality because your just describing with your imagination biological processes, nothing more nothing less. Your morality is imagine, it doesn't exist. It exists because I imagine it. And that's all we can show morality to be. Unless you can show otherwise?
Well no of course I was looking at this alleged morality from your system, not mine Oh, well, I'm not an atheist.
No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being. Right that's the whole point, its from your perspective. What is helpful to you is not to someone else. Yeah, that's the text-book definition of "subjective".
One tree falls on Tuesday in a forest another falls on Wednesday in another forest. It's only from your perspective that it has meaning, is hurtful or helpful. Until you can show us that morality is any different from that, that is how everyone is going to accept morality as being.
Got to think outside yourself when trying to think rationally and in a critical fashion. Wow, talk about comedy. Do you even know what rationally means?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
I think you missed my point. I'll try again. The word apple is not a real thing. The word, itself (that is A-P-P-L-E), is a real thing. It's a word. Words are real. I think you are talking about the concept. Concepts, too, exist as real things they just are not objective. That is, they do not exist outside of our minds. But they still exist. Are you just using the word "real" to mean "objective"? If so, you're begging the premise... Subjective things are also real.
It's a concept or contrivance to describe a biological thing round red and juicy. So the concept is also a real thing, it's just subjective rather than objective.
In a strictly Naturalistic universe, there can be no such thing as morality. There can be, but it'll have to be a subjective concept rather than an objective thing.
If we create a word to describe me hitting you in the head with a pipe, as immoral, it's still just a biological process of a metal object clashing with your skin and cranium, not moral or immoral, in reality But humans conceptualizing it and describing it as immoral is what subjective morality is. Subjective morality is really a morality and it exist in the real world, it just isn't objective like you are demanding it to be. That doesn't make it not-real and that doesn't make it not a morality. I think what you're doing here is defining morality as an objective thing that is dictated to us, or whatever, and then claiming that the subjective concepts of morality that naturalism invokes either aren't true morality or aren't really real. Well, they are real and they are morality and you haven't provided an argument to the contrary. Repeatedly insisting that "they aren't real" isn't cutting it.
In a meaningless purposeless universe, thinking brains can create mental things that can affect the real world, and therefore actually exist albeit it subjectively. That is, they are subjects of our imagination rather than objects in the real world. They still exist, they just don't exist objectively. Even if you possessed mental telapathy, your above comment would not be true. Here's why. Long before you or any other human existed the apple was what it was. The advent of the human brain does not make something more real, muchless subjectively or objectively. Before the advent of the brain, there were no imagined concepts of an objective apple. Since the advent of the brain, there has existed an imagined concept of an objective apple. That concept corresponds to physical states of the universe (including brain states of the imaginer). What should we call a physical states of the universe if not "existing"? I mean, that's what existing is.
Morality cannot be created, it either existed or did not. No, I disagree. Every culture throughout history has created their own morality. There is no one true created morality that you can show me. There is nothing you can point to that exists as an objective morality. The only moralities that we are aware of is ones that were created by humans. Some have existed, some do exist, and some are yet to exist.
Since we are basically animals, according to your doctrines and they were doing the things we were doing long before us, our coming along and describing those things as moral or immoral, doesn't change that reality, that they are not First off, you don't know my doctrines. To the point: Our coming along and describing those things as moral or immoral is what subjective morality is. You have yet to address this other than to say that it either isn't morality or it isn't real. Both of those are wrong.
That's the point, its not my definition of words or yours, it's what actually exists in reality, as I have clearly demonstrated above. Wait a minute: I though words weren't real things? Now you're saying that reality is defining things for us, as opposed to our brains conceptualizing these things? That's confusing. And you have not demonstrated that what you are calling morality is what actually exists in reality. You're just stating it and not supporting your assertion. I mean, honestly, you could end the entire argument in short time if you just pointed to an objective morality. But you can't do that, can you?
Words get thier meaning from reality not the definition you ascribe them. That is completely backwards, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Well telling me your not an Atheist, doesn't tell me what you are. So I have to speak assuming you may be something like that, correct No, incorrect. How about you speak to me as a person? Why does it matter 'what I am'? (just so you do know, I am a Christian) I happen to believe in a God-given objective morality, but it is just that: a belief. It is not something that I can point to, or show, or even know the details about. I just think God has one for us. But I also realize that the moralities that we can identify, and know the details of, are the subjective ones that we create. Those do actually exist in the real world and an atheistic perspective does not prevent anyone from rationally explaining them.
You think I'm helping you describe morality, but actually I'm demonstrating, very capably I might add, you don't even have one in reality Self-assessment is horribly inaccurate. No offense, but you're doing a terrible job of demonstrating your claim.
Wow, talk about comedy. Do you even know what rationally means? Yes I know absolutely what it means. It means that which reality will allow  Oh wow, that's, like, completely backwards. Rationalization takes place in the mind according to reason and logic. It doesn't not even require being true or even being allowed by reality. Where did you get your definition from?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: How?
Well, no, wrong again. Pay very close attention to what I'm about to say. It will help you understand what you are missing. Drop the condescension or I'll just stop replying.
Before you existed, what you describe as an APPLE already existed in reality, even if it didn't have your imagined designation, correct. So using your concepts which are not real things, doesn't give it it's meaning. It already had its existence and meaning, if you wish to call it that Of course, but that is totally beside the point. Before I existed, there was no way for the thing "an imagined apple in my mind" to exist. After I exist and imagine it, then there is a thing that exists that is "an imagined apple in my mind". There are corresponding brain states to that imagination that have associated states of the physical universe, and that is existing. That thing does not exist objectively, but it does exist subjectively. As a thing, it exists, it is real.
Before you existed, animals, we're going through the very same motions your are now. They were taking eachother lives and doing thins you now describe as moral and immoral. So, just like the apple, these things don't get thier meaning from terms you throw at them. Of course they don't. I'm not sure how you think I'm saying otherwise.
Hence no real morality in a purposeless universe. That doesn't logically follow from the premises you wrote, you need more of an argument. Again you're just assuming that moralities must be objective in order to be a "real morality". You haven't established that yet.
Imagining morality is not the same as actually having it in reality Our imaginations are in reality, but yes, they are not objective. That doesn't make them not a morality.
I never NOT said that reality defines things for us. That just what I'm saying. That doesn't even make sense.
In a purely naturalistic existence, words and concepts are just that, made up terms, things that can't really exist. You wrongly assume that for something to exist it must be objective. Subjective things also have an existence.
Since, as I have demonstrated above, morality is a made up term for things happening, that concept cannot exist, because all these things would have existed before my defining them as morality, that's assuming the Atheist postion. Wrong. Those things start existing as a morality when people start imagining them, because, a morality is a subjective things that a person imagines rather than an objective thing that we can point to.
Well that is nice to know, I did not know that. It shouldn't matter, just make your arguments against the positions I take regardless of what I am.
NCE, understand that I am not representing my argument only in these premises, I'm representing thier position to show its logical consequences and implications No offense, but you're failing miserably.
In reality conscience and morality that Cleary exists in humans is proof for the existence of God. If however, he did not exist, it would make no logical sense and could not be explained or rationalized, other than biological processess Other than? Is that a tacit admission that there is actually a rationalization? Biological processes, as explanations, can rationalize subjective moralities. You've been presented an explanation of moralities evolving via biological processes. You have yet to address that other than repeating: "Nuh-uh, that's not real morality in reality."
Self assessment is not necessary where, where reality does that for us. Reality, itself, does not assess. But regardless of any necessity, you did assess yourself... poorly.
Reality gives us the allowances and limits of reason and logic. Those things don't define reality. It's the other way around No, reason and logic are not bound by reality. According to reason and logic, adamantium is strong enough that it could cut a unicorn's horn. Neither of those things are real, but the statement is still reasoned and logical (assuming the hidden premises).
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
If Jesus truth is not absolute or objective, why should I trust anything he said, correct? No, geez, that is just terrible theology. All-or-nothing is patently stupid. Take the statement: "The sky is green and 2+2=4". That the first half is wrong does not mean that the second half is too. The Golden Rule is a good one even if Jesus wasn't perfect and there's no reason to throw it out if Jesus was wrong about something.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 314 by jar, posted 02-22-2017 10:51 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
It's not beside the point, it is the point. Now we are starting to narrow it down,. Good. While your imaginations exist, so to speak, they are not real. I can imagine things that clearly do not exist. I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real In order for the above to be correct, you have to be conflating the terms "real" and "objective". I don't agree with that, but I can operate under that assumption for the purpose of this discussion. From now on, whenever you use the word "real", or "existing", I am going to replace it with the word "objective" to avoid my own confusion.
Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real objective, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real objective Hence morality or as it is described in a purely naturalistic enviornment objectively cannot exist either. Now, in this sense I agree: Morality cannot be described objectively and we cannot know an objective morality. All we have is our subjective imaginations and conclusion of what morality is.
I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real objective. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real objective, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real objective Nobody thinks that imaginations are objective. If you were trying to say something else with the word "real", then here:
I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real That's illogical. Your ability to imagine impossible things does not mean that 1) you cannot imagine things that are real, and 2) that your imagination, itself, is not a real thing.
Certainly it does. Objective and subjective are just more words to define something that doesn't need defining, namely things happening in reality. So, take something either real or not real and create an imagination of it. Now, in your mind, that imagination exist as a thing and that thing exists in reality in your brain. It is not an objective thing and it does not exist outside of your mind, but it does exist within the universe. How would you like to describe the existence of that thing?
Ok, if you think I haven't addressed it, provide the single argument from any individual here that refutes my contentions Modulus provided a fantastic rationalization of morality from a purely naturalistic and atheistic perspective in Message 233. Your reply to that boiled down to "nuh-uh, that doesn't exist in the real world".
The first part of your sentence is nonsensical. You need to demonstrate that an imagined thing is actually real objective, before it can be described as morality, subjective or objective. Imaginations are not objective, they are subjective. That doesn't make them not real. If you mean something other than objective by the word "real", then here is a reason why your imagination is real: The universe is real. Your brain is in the universe, and is also real. Your mind is in your brain, and is also real. You imagination is in your mind, which is real, which is in your brain that is real, which is in the universe that is real and therefore, your imagination is also real.
Those words including morality don't give things in reality MORE meaning. They can.
They are ALREADY what they are, your arbitrary descriptions don't make them more than what they are. You don't have to make something objectively more than what it is in order to have more meaning to that thing subjectively.
I've already demonstrated to many times that your or my imaginations do not exist in reality objectively, that is they are not real objective. We all agree that subjective moralities are not objective.
I'll try again. If I imagine myself flying simply using my body and arms, it's not real objective, I I imagine myself walking down the street, it's not actually real objective, even if I go do it, my imagination of doing it is not real objective. Nobody thinks that imaginations are objective.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
So, take something either real or not real and create an imagination of it. Now, in your mind, that imagination exist as a thing and that thing exists in reality in your brain. It is not an objective thing and it does not exist outside of your mind, but it does exist within the universe. How would you like to describe the existence of that thing? And imagination that does not actually exist. Hold on: You are saying that something in this world that corresponds to physical states of the universe does not exist? I can't agree to that, that's what existing means. Without getting passed this, I don't think we can see eye-to-eye on this topic.
The word itself or its implied implication have no meaning in a purely naturalistic universe. The way you talk about this makes me think you may have set up a tautology, or that you're not talking about the same things when you say a naturalistic universe. It looks like you are defining a purely naturalistic universe as one that does not have non-objective meanings in it. If that's the case, then your atheistic target audience would already disagree because in their naturalistic universe there is meaning that is non-objective. So either you're talking about something different than that, or their universe isn't actually purely naturalistic.
BTW , it's impossible for you to imagine impossible things. Not that is a tautology, for if I can imagine it then you will say that the thing is not impossible. I can imagine more that three ways to create a universe, and if I add a spatial dimension I can image a square circle, but that isn't really on topic for this thread so let's not get into it.
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 Or, I could just be wrong about it. That wouldn't prevent me from creating the morality. Too, even if something was revealed to me, I would still need to interject my opinion to relate it to the real world. And I wouldn't know if I was correct about it or not, nor if I could trust the source of the revelation, so I'd be in the exact same boat with my subjective morality anyways.
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? Incorrect. My morality doesn't have to be absolutely correct in order to be a morality. And I don't have to know everything that is ethical or not in order to come up with a morality either. You're just going to say that they are not real objective, but it is what it is: they exist and they are subjective. And they are moralities.
Subjective is just another imagined word that means nothing in an ethical sense. So this whole thing is just a slippery slope to solipsism... hooray
If you think he presented something that I did not respond to in argument form, please present I'll show you I did You responded to it with an argument of "nuh-uh that isn't real". Whoopty-do.
Opinions are observation, but they are not morality. Says you, but that's just your opinion... which isn't even real according to yourself. And you have yet to show us an objective morality that doesn't rely on your opinion. The rest of what you quoted wasn't written by me.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 359 of 1006 (800819)
02-28-2017 2:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 358 by Modulous
02-28-2017 1:41 PM
|
|
Re: in a circle
Ready to move forwards yet, or do you want another round of circular running, saying the same things over and over again that amount to - 'but but subjectivity means that things are subjective and if they are subjective they aren't objective!'? Re-read the OP under the guise of them just saying that subjective moralities are not objective. I'm pretty sure that is the sole and entire point. (ya know: actually, in reality)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 358 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2017 1:41 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: How?
Whether you think morality is a real thing or not, asaresult of the imagination, it could still be nothing more than a made up thing like the word apple. Sure, but the word apple exists and has meaning (that we've assigned to it). The same goes for subjective moralities but you deny this.
Assigning meaning to things, as humans, doesntgive them actual meaning or more meaning. I disagree, for that is what meaning is - what we assign to things as humans. As far as we are aware, there is no meaning that humans have not assigned.
This is easily demonstrated in the fact that according to naturalism, life forms were here long before us. They were going through the same motions. But we have sentience. That allows us to create meaning. The fact that a worm has a meaningless existence doesn't mean that I do too.
If it was not murder then, it would not in reality be murder now. Bullshit, morals change. We witness that.
Hence, the word morality is strictly a human invention, with no real real meaning in reality On the contrary, humans have invented a meaning in reality for morality.
Imagining subjective morality doesn't help the logical conclusion of this problem, from a strictly rational standpoint We don't agree on what "rational" means, so we're not going to get anywhere on that. But your "problem" is non-existent - you're just conflating reality with objectiveness and dismissing subjective moralities outright. Given that subjective moralities do exist, in reality, your "problem" is a non-starter from the get go.
Since humans made up the word morality it would follow that subjective and objective don't matter to begin with, correct? Incorrect. They matter in the sense that they describe the qualities of the thing. What doesn't matter is that humans made up the word morality.
Since there were life forms here long before humans and thier behavior even now is not described as moral or immoral, it would mean that just like the word apple, the word morality is just an invention of the mind, that when applied to things in reality DON'T ACTUALLY give them more meaning. I contend that ACTUALLY having meaning comes from inventions of the mind. That previous lifeforms were unable to do this is irrelevant.
Human imagination ascribes these meanings that don't actually exist. No, that ascribing is actually existing. There is no "other" existing that only counts as actually existing that human imaginations fall outside of. There is objectivity (which you conflate with reality), and that is different from subjectivity, but both of those things actually do exist in reality.
How will you avoid this conclusion? Contend that non-objective things do exist in reality. You have yet to address this point to me.
|
™ Version 4.2