Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 258
  1. #201
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Either way, the one who has it right has a superior belief. And the system that exists is superior to the system that does not exist.

    And you are ok till "the system that exists is superior" ......at this point your argument fails.

    A correct "belief" has absolutely no affect on the superiority of the system, only its correct identification, nothing more.

  2. #202
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And you are ok till "the system that exists is superior" ......at this point your argument fails.
    No, it doesn't.

    That which exists IS superior to that which does not exist.

    If you had to get somewhere fast, which would be better at helping you get - the car that exists or the car that does not exist? The car that exists is CLEARLY superior to the car that does not exist and the same principle applies here.

    And in my last post, I fully explained my rationale for holding that one is superior over the other but you did not address it so I will paste it into this post.

    Either:

    1. Morality is objective and those who forward subjective morality are misidentifying the actual source of morality and therefore, all else being equal, have an inferior moral system to those who do correctly hold that certain moral position are objectively true.

    Or

    2. Morality is subjective and those who forward that morality is based on human beings, all else being equal, have a superior moral system to those those attribute morality to something that doesn't even exist.


    As demonstrated above, that which is correct is superior to the alternative.

    So unless you have a rebuttal for what's above, it stands and therefore I've shown that whichever is correct is superior to the other.
    Last edited by mican333; August 15th, 2017 at 06:22 AM.

  3. #203
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it doesn't.

    That which exists IS superior to that which does not exist.

    If you had to get somewhere fast, which would be better at helping you get - the car that exists or the car that does not exist? The car that exists is CLEARLY superior to the car that does not exist and the same principle applies here.

    And in my last post, I fully explained my rationale for holding that one is superior over the other but you did not address it so I will paste it into this post.

    Either:

    1. Morality is objective and those who forward subjective morality are misidentifying the actual source of morality and therefore, all else being equal, have an inferior moral system to those who do correctly hold that certain moral position are objectively true.

    Or

    2. Morality is subjective and those who forward that morality is based on human beings, all else being equal, have a superior moral system to those those attribute morality to something that doesn't even exist.


    As demonstrated above, that which is correct is superior to the alternative.

    So unless you have a rebuttal for what's above, it stands and therefore I've shown that whichever is correct is superior to the other.

    Ok, I give. I will endeavor to sharpen my communication skills, but in another thread, cause I just ain't getting thru in this one.

    Whatever the current state of morals in our universe may be, it is superior, as defined by the Op.
    (superior to what though, since you only allow the current state to be explored? seems quite a short list to pick from.....)

    Till we meet again sir,

  4. #204
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    From their offspring.

    Genesis 5:4 (NASB)
    4*Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So you are forwarding that Adam had children with his daughters and/or Eve had children with their sons and/or their children had children together?
    And that all of humanity has been produced from these relationships?
    I am forwarding that Adam and Eve's children had children with their brothers and sisters. Cain married his sister and had offspring. Seth had offspring with another sister, and so on. My contention (the biblical view) is that humanity started with Adam and Eve.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I have found that some atheists live better lives than Christians do. The question is how they justify what they believe. I do not see their worldview as able to make sense of morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If they are living "better", do they really need to "justify" it?
    No, if they are not trying to justify their belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Who do they need to "justifying" it to ?
    The problem arises once they seek to justify that their belief as "better." Then their system miserably falls apart. They don't have the means to justify it other than by might makes right. Why is one personal preference any BETTER than any other?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Lot's of this doesn't make sense. Adding God does not clear it all up.
    Sure it answers some questions, but then it asks a whole bunch more.....
    How does an atheist make sense of why their relative opinion is any better than any other? If no objective reference point for "better" exists (best) then what does he compare his standard too that is meaningful? How is his system of "better" actually "Better than Hitler's or Kim Jong-un's? How does an atheist convince someone of the superiority of his belief - other than by force. He doesn't have an ultimate measure, a fixed reference point that is best. IT IS ALL RELATIVE. He is trying to convince you to accept what he LIKES, what he PREFERS. Why SHOULD you, other than he is going to force you if he is stronger than you or because you like it too? How does he get SUPERIOR other than by strength? He has nothing to compare superior to but what he likes (unless he borrows from a system of thought (the Christian worldview) that can justify itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How did that meaning originate?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It originated when I was born, as with all life.
    No, it did not. The meaning was there BEFORE you were born unless you believe that you are the cause of all things but don't really understand how you did it. (^8

    Neither you nor I am necessary for morality. It did not originate from us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I think maybe ALL life has the SAME "meaning". From a bacteria to human and every other form of life that may exist anywhere.

    Whatever your personal values, you have to admit, life is a pretty damn incredible thing!
    What human ever could have imagined such a "thing"
    What meaning are you assigning all life?

    Peter

  5. #205
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, I give. I will endeavor to sharpen my communication skills, but in another thread, cause I just ain't getting thru in this one.
    It's not your ability to communicate what you mean that's the problem. The problem is that you aren't addressing my argument.

    Here is my argument again:

    Either:

    1. Morality is objective and those who forward subjective morality are misidentifying the actual source of morality and therefore, all else being equal, have an inferior moral system to those who do correctly hold that certain moral position are objectively true.

    Or

    2. Morality is subjective and those who forward that morality is based on human beings, all else being equal, have a superior moral system to those those attribute morality to something that doesn't even exist.

    As demonstrated above, that which is correct is superior to the alternative.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Whatever the current state of morals in our universe may be, it is superior, as defined by the Op.
    (superior to what though, since you only allow the current state to be explored? seems quite a short list to pick from.....)
    Well, read my argument. What am I comparing objective morality to? What am I comparing subjective morality to? I'm comparing them to each other.

    So yes, it is a short list. There are two options. If you don't want to compare the two things that the OP and the very title of the thread is comparing, then I guess you don't really have a valid rebuttal to the OP.
    Last edited by mican333; August 15th, 2017 at 09:03 PM.

  6. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I am forwarding that Adam and Eve's children had children with their brothers and sisters. Cain married his sister and had offspring. Seth had offspring with another sister, and so on. My contention (the biblical view) is that humanity started with Adam and Eve.
    Peter

    I see.
    Our DNA seems to show that we are not descended from a single parent (since Eve was "born" of Adam's rib, she would have the same DNA). It also shows that all life on this planet shares some common DNA.

    If brothers and sisters had children together today, all sorts of abnormalities become dominant. Why is this an issue today, if not in the past?

    ---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, if they are not trying to justify their belief.
    I do like your attitude

    ---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The problem arises once they seek to justify that their belief as "better." Then their system miserably falls apart. They don't have the means to justify it other than by might makes right. Why is one personal preference any BETTER than any other?
    Mican and I have been discussing this point, but we don't seem to agree.

    ---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How does an atheist make sense of why their relative opinion is any better than any other? If no objective reference point for "better" exists (best) then what does he compare his standard too that is meaningful? How is his system of "better" actually "Better than Hitler's or Kim Jong-un's? How does an atheist convince someone of the superiority of his belief - other than by force. He doesn't have an ultimate measure, a fixed reference point that is best. IT IS ALL RELATIVE. He is trying to convince you to accept what he LIKES, what he PREFERS. Why SHOULD you, other than he is going to force you if he is stronger than you or because you like it too? How does he get SUPERIOR other than by strength? He has nothing to compare superior to but what he likes (unless he borrows from a system of thought (the Christian worldview) that can justify itself.
    Well, perhaps start with a premise something similar to the Ten Commandments for instance. I don't think it (always) takes force for someone to see a major positive vs a major negative.

    On another note, it very well could be we actually live in a subjectively moral universe, and yet, we still can discuss what an objective system's particular's could be. So why couldn't a subjective system, mirror an objective system

    ---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, it did not. The meaning was there BEFORE you were born unless you believe that you are the cause of all things but don't really understand how you did it. (^8

    Neither you nor I am necessary for morality. It did not originate from us.
    Hmmm. I thought you meant my personal life. Prior to being born, I don't believe my life had meaning. When I was born, it then did have meaning. But if you just mean my being "born", it had the same meaning like the start of any life form.

    Apparently, fairly special, as all we can find anywhere but earth is seemingly desolate.

    ---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What meaning are you assigning all life?
    Peter
    I am forwarding that life here in earth seems pretty unique/special. As far as we know, unique to earth. In that, since the universe is too huge for a human to actually grasp, life is indeed special. Certainly not just human life, but all life. It matters not, if "we" (earth) are the only life in the near solar system or the only life in the universe. Life is indeed special and unique. And it should be thought of in this way.

    I don't know how to answer your question better than that.

  7. #207
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I see.
    Our DNA seems to show that we are not descended from a single parent (since Eve was "born" of Adam's rib, she would have the same DNA). It also shows that all life on this planet shares some common DNA.
    The biblical explanation is that we are descendant from two people - Adam/male and Eve/female. After God took the rib from Adam to make Eve, the question is what He did to make the two people different. We are not told, but we see the result and significance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If brothers and sisters had children together today, all sorts of abnormalities become dominant. Why is this an issue today, if not in the past?
    Right, the genetic defect is a definite possibility in today's world. Adam's kids had purer genetics is one possible explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The problem arises once they seek to justify that their belief as "better." Then their system miserably falls apart. They don't have the means to justify it other than by might makes right. Why is one personal preference any BETTER than any other?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Mican and I have been discussing this point, but we don't seem to agree.
    I think you see behind Mican's bravado when it comes to supplying an adequate and reasonable account of relative morality.

    The Bible lays down a moral code that I believe is most sensible and objective in our human dealing with each other:
    1) Do not murder,
    2) Do not steal,
    3) Do not lie,
    4) Do not commit adultery,
    5) Do not covet.

    That covers humanities relationship with each other. Jesus summed it up with the command to love your neighbor.

    If Mican does not think these are objective moral standards of human conduct, then let him JUSTIFY how it is ever right to murder, lie, steal, or rape for fun. If he can't do that then, he thinks these are objective, universal moral obligations also.

    He side-stepped my challenge to him regarding the logical laws of identity in making sense of A = A in a relativistic universe. "Good" can mean anything depending on whose relative view or which relative culture you live. Kim Jong-un's "good" differs from ours. To him, it may very well be pleasurable to obliterate America. He has little regard for your well-being, only his own (He has lost touch with God's morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How does an atheist make sense of why their relative opinion is any better than any other? If no objective reference point for "better" exists (best) then what does he compare his standard too that is meaningful? How is his system of "better" actually "Better than Hitler's or Kim Jong-un's? How does an atheist convince someone of the superiority of his belief - other than by force. He doesn't have an ultimate measure, a fixed reference point that is best. IT IS ALL RELATIVE. He is trying to convince you to accept what he LIKES, what he PREFERS. Why SHOULD you, other than he is going to force you if he is stronger than you or because you like it too? How does he get SUPERIOR other than by strength? He has nothing to compare superior to but what he likes (unless he borrows from a system of thought (the Christian worldview) that can justify itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well, perhaps start with a premise something similar to the Ten Commandments for instance. I don't think it (always) takes force for someone to see a major positive vs a major negative.
    No, but enforcement or fear is the way to safeguard a moral preference when someone does not want to comply with the made up standard. It boils down to who holds power to get their choice enacted. If nothing is stopping me from doing something because there is no fixed right or wrong then why would I stop doing what I like? A reason is that I am forced to do so, even though I don't believe it is right to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    On another note, it very well could be we actually live in a subjectively moral universe, and yet, we still can discuss what an objective system's particular's could be. So why couldn't a subjective system, mirror an objective system.
    The problem is if the universe has no mind behind it then what relative mind gets to decide what is good and why are they RIGHT?

    There is no ultimate standard to fix "right" too.

    A subjective system can't mirror an objective system unless an actual objective system already exists. If you don't have a standard for straightness then how can you measure it? You can't arbitrarily make up a standard and call it objective. How would you ever know? That is the problem without God. How do you know? It is a question of epistemology.

    Again, why does one subjective, relative mind get to decide for the rest of humanity? Which mind(s) SHOULD choose for the rest of us?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    No, it did not. The meaning was there BEFORE you were born unless you believe that you are the cause of all things but don't really understand how you did it. (^8

    Neither you nor I am necessary for morality. It did not originate from us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Hmmm. I thought you meant my personal life. Prior to being born, I don't believe my life had meaning. When I was born, it then did have meaning. But if you just mean my being "born", it had the same meaning like the start of any life form.

    Apparently, fairly special, as all we can find anywhere but earth is seemingly desolate.
    No, I was speaking in generalities. Morality existed before we did unless you want to argue that you are all that exists and this dialog is a figment of your imagination? Then we (you) need to have another conversation. (^8

    What I am getting at is that morality requires a mind, but neither your mind nor my mind is a necessary mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am forwarding that life here in earth seems pretty unique/special. As far as we know, unique to earth. In that, since the universe is too huge for a human to actually grasp, life is indeed special. Certainly not just human life, but all life. It matters not, if "we" (earth) are the only life in the near solar system or the only life in the universe. Life is indeed special and unique. And it should be thought of in this way.

    I don't know how to answer your question better than that.
    I think you have to approach the question of WHY life is so unique and extraordinary from one of two positions.

    Carl Sagan said, "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." He looked for answers within the universe. Is it more reasonable to believe the answers come from within or to believe that the answer transcends our universe?

    It doesn't ultimately matter in the overall picture if the answer comes from within the universe because the universe is not personal or mindful of your existence. It just happened.

    The question is why do we humans try and make it matter? We look for meaning and seek it with everything we do.

    Questions, and why questions, are something Mican wants to exclude from this discussion but you can include them. You can test your core beliefs and see how they hold up, see how they make sense of life's ultimate questions.

    I would request you read a book on the very issue of whether the answer comes from inside or outside the universe. A homicide detective who used to be an atheist wrote it. He examines the evidence using the same forensic approach he used to investigate a potential crime scene. In a possible crime scene either the evidence lies within the "room" or scene of the incident or it comes from outside the room or scene of the investigation.

    http://godscrimescene.com/

    For me, one of the biggest reasons against a happenstance universe is intentionality. How does intentionality arise from such a universe? How is the universe sustained without intentionality?

    I use the analogy of dice. Roll a dice a million times randomly trying to maintain the same result every time. It may be achievable in theory, but in practice, it seems impossible unless the dice are fixed (intentionality behind the roll).

    Now take away the agent doing the rolling of the dice. Now, how do the dice roll themselves? The atheist ASSUMES they can.

    A happenstance universe is what is left when you denude it of intentionality.

    What is there to reason out? Why are you trying to find reason in it if it is just random and impersonal? That reasoning worldview comes from the Christian system of thought, not the atheistic.

    How does something that is unintentional (the mindless universe) account for the uniformity of nature (natural laws, why things are sustainable and continue to act in predictable manners)? How and why should it? There is NO REASON unless there is a transcendent Mind. Because we DO have uniformity of nature (the same things repeat) we can do science - we can predict, we can discover these laws of thought that run the universe!

    Peter

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #208
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The biblical explanation is that we are descendant from two people - Adam/male and Eve/female. After God took the rib from Adam to make Eve, the question is what He did to make the two people different. We are not told, but we see the result and significance.
    DNA proves this is not the case. We share DNA with all known life though.

    ---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Right, the genetic defect is a definite possibility in today's world. Adam's kids had purer genetics is one possible explanation.

    It's much more than a possibility. Inbreeding will lead to abnormalities, genetics show this to be true .

    ---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The Bible lays down a moral code that I believe is most sensible and objective in our human dealing with each other:
    1) Do not murder,
    2) Do not steal,
    3) Do not lie,
    4) Do not commit adultery,
    5) Do not covet.

    That covers humanities relationship with each other. Jesus summed it up with the command to love your neighbor.

    Yes it does, however, there is no reason human's could not have come up with the same ideas by themselves. It would be hard to be a "social animal" (in that we need each other to stay alive) if some what similar ideas weren't part of the norm. How would a "colony/village/whatever survive without such an understanding of right and wrong??? It wouldn't. No such population would survive to procreate. Kind of the definition of anarchy.

    ---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The problem is if the universe has no mind behind it then what relative mind gets to decide what is good and why are they RIGHT?

    There is no ultimate standard to fix "right" too.

    That is true, but why is it not even possible in your world view? I understand you don't like the idea, but it seems a humans could exist without an objective morality.
    Just because there is no "fixed" right or wrong wouldn't preclude that reality from being possible.

    Why is an objective morality necessary for humans to exist?

    ---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The question is why do we humans try and make it matter? We look for meaning and seek it with everything we do.

    I believe if you look for God you will "find" him. If you are looking for truth, not so much.

    People do look for meaning. To the point of inventing it.

    Funny when I hear of the "fine tuned " universe or some such.
    If the universe were not "orderly" (physical laws and such), we wouldn't be here, so of course, by definition, any universe that contained human life, would necessarily need such a situation. It's just not surprising then that our universe is this way. It still does not necessitate a God. I realize that could be a valid explanation, but not that it is the ONLY one possible.

    ---------- Post added at 08:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How does something that is unintentional (the mindless universe) account for the uniformity of nature (natural laws, why things are sustainable and continue to act in predictable manners)? How and why should it? There is NO REASON unless there is a transcendent Mind. Because we DO have uniformity of nature (the same things repeat) we can do science - we can predict, we can discover these laws of thought that run the universe!
    Peter

    Nobody knows, but one of the cool things about being human is curiosity. Rather than just say "DNA was more pure in the early days", we look for is it even possible or how could it have been. We call them "laws", the universe does what it does whether we care or agree. We call them "laws", but it's a big universe ( to far to travel even at the speed of light), we don't really know for sure everything is actually the "same" everywhere...

    ---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What is there to reason out? Why are you trying to find reason in it if it is just random and impersonal? That reasoning worldview comes from the Christian system of thought, not the atheistic.
    I am not trying to find "reason". A person is search of God would be on such a quest.

    I am searching for truth.
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 29th, 2017 at 06:52 PM.

  10. #209
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The biblical explanation is that we are descendant from two people - Adam/male and Eve/female. After God took the rib from Adam to make Eve, the question is what He did to make the two people different. We are not told, but we see the result and significance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    DNA proves this is not the case. We share DNA with all known life though.
    Mindful beings/people make this logical inference from DNA. DNA proves nothing since it is a thing, not a conscious mindful person (unless you want to argue that you are nothing more than your DNA?). Your particular WORLDVIEW looks at life from a naturalistic framework. There is only so far we can go in evaluating the distant past. Naturally, you discount the supernatural. That is the framework of your belief system.

    I, on the other hand, do not doubt God, even if I don't know all the details. Rather, I trust Him! My belief in God has what is necessary to make sense of existence. In a universe devoid of God there is no ultimate sense to be made of anything - it just is (for no reason). As I said before, you holding a worldview devoid of God ultimately results in futility/meaninglessness. What does it matter? Why are you making it matter? You display and seek the very attributes you seek to deny by holding a natural instead of a supernatural worldview - meaning.

    Why meaning, in a meaningless universe?
    Why life?
    Why conscious being?
    Why reasoning, logical beings?
    Why something (the universe) rather than nothing?
    Why purpose?
    Why order from chaos?
    Why intentionality?
    Why laws that are DISCOVERED?
    Why uniformity in nature/sustainability?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    We share DNA with all known life though.
    My answer: So what?

    We share it because we share a common environment - earth. That is why we can find similarities between us and the simpler life forms. We all need oxygen to live and a food chain to live off.

    Christianity recognizes that God created all life forms on earth to share this common environment. The difference between us and them is that God gave humanity, in Adam, dominion over the other life forms on this planet. We have a responsibility over what He has given us.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Right, the genetic defect is a definite possibility in today's world. Adam's kids had purer genetics is one possible explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It's much more than a possibility. Inbreeding will lead to abnormalities.
    The genetic defect is not only a POSSIBILITY with inbreeding, it is a possibility with outbreeding also. If you have a genetic mutation in an individual human then those who mate with that carrier of the genetic defect have a greater chance of carrying that defect on to their offspring. That does not necessarily mean that every person who mates with that person is going to get the genetic defect. To my limited understanding, it depends on the dominant or recessive gene nature in receiving that trait and passing it on.

    In some case studies inbreeding has not passed on the type of results that you are characterizing above ("more than a possibility").

    http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/Quan...ing_Humans.htm

    " There are several reasons that a population would practice inbreeding that span from religion to geography to royal bloodlines.* Many studies have shown that inbreeding can cause increases in mortality and morbidity.* As populations become more knowledgeable to these possible effects levels of inbreeding tend to decrease.* However, there are other populations that are less knowledgeable to the possible negative outcomes of inbreeding, and it is possible that the effects of inbreeding may not be detectable or visible.* Therefore, if there are harmful recessive alleles present in the population, the genes and characteristics still have the possibility of surfacing and negatively affecting a population, but it is very possible that the population will never see any harmful effects due to incest.* In fact, some experts believe that in some cases inbreeding can be helpful to a population by constantly exposing harmful recessive genes to selection.* By frequently exposing these genes to selection, the harmful alleles can become permanently eliminated from the population....However, most experts would agree that practicing outbreeding will provide a population with the best opportunity to achieve a high level of health."

    Christianity has a reason for genetic mutations. It is called The Fall (Genesis 3:16-20). God cursed the earth, as well as humanity (for a reason). It is a reminder of our separation from God (Romans 8:18-21) and the suffering (death) it created when man tries to live apart from God. We do not find rest unless/until we find God.

    Peter*

    ---------- Post added at 03:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The Bible lays down a moral code that I believe is most sensible and objective in our human dealing with each other:
    1) Do not murder,
    2) Do not steal,
    3) Do not lie,
    4) Do not commit adultery,
    5) Do not covet.

    That covers humanities relationship with each other. Jesus summed it up with the command to love your neighbor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yes it does, however, there is no reason human's could not have come up with the same ideas by themselves.
    There are lots of reasons.

    ON FAITH you believe that humanity could have come up with the idea of meaning by themselves. The problem is that you first have to get to the point of conscious beings without necessary reasoning Being as the process of making them. You just materialize consciousness and humanity, the universe and life, out of nothing. Then you say - "No reason necessary!"

    Then you have the problem in that what you believe is not OBSERVABLE science. The nature of origins for life and the universe is not something you can repeat. You have to take it by faith that THE PRESENT is the KEY to THE PAST in UNDERSTANDING something that had no reason, no order, no intentionality, no purpose, no intelligence, no morality, no mind. You interpret that DATA (from the distant past) from a particular mindset that can have no certainty to it, yet the idea is fostered on those who do not want to explore the subject further. Your worldview lacks what is necessary for certainty - an objective, necessary uncaused Being.

    I witness life coming from the living, intelligent beings producing other intelligent beings, conscious being coming from other conscious beings, the same kind giving rise to more of the same kind, intentionality coming from the intentional, purpose deriving from other purposeful beings, morality coming from moral beings. That is the REPEATABLY witness I see. I can explain reasoning beings coming from other reasoning beings and an ultimate reasoning Being. How do you explain how reasoning comes into being from rocks and chemicals mixing together?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It would be hard to be a "social animal" (in that we need each other to stay alive) if some what similar ideas weren't part of the norm. How would a "colony/village/whatever survive without such an understanding of right and wrong??? It wouldn't. No such population would survive to procreate. Kind of the definition of anarchy.
    Again, what do you fix goodness to that does not shift and change? What is your FINAL reference point? What you call "good" defies the laws of logic (specifically the laws of contradiction or identity - A = A. A = Good; Good = Good) unless there is an unchanging best measure to fix it too.

    Which person, group, society, determines what "A" SHOULD be and WHY are they RIGHT? Why does "A" change depending on the individual, culture, or society? Why does "A" change through time? Not long ago abortion (in a woman's right to choose) and same-sex marriage was considered taboo. Today it is the opposite (A no longer equals A; it loses its identity). Which is the TRUE or RIGHT belief? Is abortion (the woman's right to choose) actually right or wrong? Who decides?

    Why is it BETTER to survive in a meaningless universe? Why should I think along the lines you are proposing? Why not think like Kim Jong-un and look out for my own well-being rather than the well-being of others, unless it suits my purposes for a brief period of time?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The problem is if the universe has no mind behind it then what relative mind gets to decide what is good and why are they RIGHT?

    There is no ultimate standard to fix "right" too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That is true, but why is it not even possible in your world view? I understand you don't like the idea, but it seems a humans could exist without an objective morality.
    Just because there is no "fixed" right or wrong wouldn't preclude that reality from being possible.
    BECAUSE IT DEFIES LOGIC. You can't make sense of morality without an objective standard just like you can't make sense of a crooked line unless you have a standard of straightness in the physical world. There has to be an objective (best) measure in the physical world of weights and measures yet you can't materialize one in the abstract world of morality without a mindful being and an objective being at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why is an objective morality necessary for humans to exist?
    It is not necessary for them to exist. It is necessary for them to make sense of right and wrong. Without an objective standard everything is relative. Why is your relative standard any BETTER than any other relative standard? You CAN'T say it is. All you can say is, "I like it!" Some like Hitler, others Obama. What is your preference? Fine, until you are at the hands of Hitler and you are the next one in line for the gas chambers. Then, it matters. Then some things are definitely wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The question is why do we humans try and make it matter? We look for meaning and seek it with everything we do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I believe if you look for God you will "find" him. If you are looking for truth, not so much.
    God is truth.

    He has revealed Himself.

    You won't find Him without humbling yourself and admitting that there is someone greater than yourself who you rely on for your existence. You do not have the answers. Humanity, without God, does not have the answers. Mican will not find the answers within himself. He needs an outside objective source that is almighty and omniscient. You will not find the answers with Mican. He is as lost as the next guy.

    If you don't find truth then all you have is falsehood. Do you like believing what is false? (When you come to that red light it means Go! Good luck!).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    People do look for meaning. To the point of inventing it.
    True!

    What is the point of looking for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are you looking for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are you even able to look for meaning in a meaningless universe?

    What you are doing is bypassing how you got to the point of meaning. Look to that point and try and make sense of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Funny when I hear of the "fine tuned " universe or some such.
    If the universe were not "orderly" (physical laws and such), we wouldn't be here, so of course, by definition, any universe that contained human life, would necessarily need such a situation. It's just not surprising then that our universe is this way. It still does not necessitate a God. I realize that could be a valid explanation, but not that it is the ONLY one possible.
    How can something (the universe) without intentionality, without meaning, without consciousness, without intelligence, without reason and logic, without purpose, without life, just randomly, haphazardly, chaotically, produce it. You believe it can by BLIND faith in....WHAT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1] Nobody knows, but one of the cool things about being human is curiosity. Rather than just say "DNA was more pure in the early days", we look for is it even possible or how could it have been. [2] We call them "laws", the universe does what it does whether we care or agree. We call them "laws", but it's a big universe ( to far to travel even at the speed of light), we don't really know for sure everything is actually the "same" everywhere...
    [1] Again, you believe no one knows.

    How do you KNOW that?

    [2] How do you get LAWS? We DISCOVER the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, logic, mathematics, etc. We don't make them up, yet without a mind/minds to think them would they exist? What do you think? How do you grab hold of the laws of logic in a material universe? Grab hold of the concept of E=MC2. How do you do that? Are these laws PHYSICAL or are they concepts we discover that helps us to EXPLAIN the physical world? How can something material produce something abstract and immaterial in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am not trying to find "reason". A person is search of God would be on such a quest.
    Then, there is no point in reasoning with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am searching for truth.
    You won't find truth without using reason (God given reason at that).

    Peter

  11. #210
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Mindful beings/people make this logical inference from DNA. DNA proves nothing since it is a thing, not a conscious mindful person (unless you want to argue that you are nothing more than your DNA?).

    DNA is why you have two arms instead of more or none. It is why you have a mind to think with. Of course it is not (all a person is").
    DNA tells cells how to act to assemble your body and keep it functioning. It is a blue print of the making and maintaining of your body

    ---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    In a universe devoid of God there is no ultimate sense to be made of anything - it just is (for no reason).
    I realize you don't like the idea, but you haven't supported why a universe without a God could not exist.

    Why must the universe make "sense"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    My answer: So what?

    I was trying to show you that ALL known life shares some DNA in common. From a fish, monkey, trees, fungus, birds, dinosaurs, all known life is related. Because we ALL share a common ancestry. And all know life did not did not originate with two humans, but from much simpler forms of life.
    Humans breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. From an evolution standpoint, this makes sense. From Adam and Eve it does not.

    (aside: I don't see that humans have "dominion" over the rest of life on earth. All sorts of "living" diseases kill humans daily as well as numerous animals from hippopotamus to bees.)

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why is it BETTER to survive in a meaningless universe? Why should I think along the lines you are proposing? Why not think like Kim Jong-un and look out for my own well-being rather than the well-being of others, unless it suits my purposes for a brief period of time?

    When did I say it would be "better". I told you, I am looking for truth. Truth and better have nothing to do with each other.[COLOR="Silver"]

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    My answer: So what?
    God is truth.
    He has revealed Himself.
    [/QUOTE]


    If he had what need of faith?
    Why should faith be needed anyway?

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    BECAUSE IT DEFIES LOGIC. You can't make sense of morality without an objective standard just like you can't make sense of a crooked line unless you have a standard of straightness in the physical world. There has to be an objective (best) measure in the physical world of weights and measures yet you can't materialize one in the abstract world of morality without a mindful being and an objective being at that.

    And yet, this may be exactly the "world" we live in, since no one knows for sure if God exists. Subjective morality may be all we have.
    I know you believe strongly that God does exist, but it's hardly a given or we wouldn't be able to argue about it

    ---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    ON FAITH you believe that humanity could have come up with the idea of meaning by themselves. The problem is that you first have to get to the point of conscious beings without necessary reasoning Being as the process of making them. You just materialize consciousness and humanity, the universe and life, out of nothing. Then you say - "No reason necessary!"

    Not really. If rape. murder, theft, assaults were the norm, that society would die off. You just can't have groups of humans (or any other animal) living in close proximity, without some sort of order/rules/codes of conduct. A colony of ants would not be able to survive without it. They don't have a God (hmmm, to be able to read another animals thoughts....) and they generally still behave in ways that help their "society". So do apes, ducks, well any social animal. Kinda by definition or they wouldn't be "social" animals.

    If other animals can do it, why not humans?

    ---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [2] How do you get LAWS? We DISCOVER the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, logic, mathematics, etc. We don't make them up, yet without a mind/minds to think them would they exist? What do you think? How do you grab hold of the laws of logic in a material universe? Grab hold of the concept of E=MC2. How do you do that? Are these laws PHYSICAL or are they concepts we discover that helps us to EXPLAIN the physical world? How can something material produce something abstract and immaterial in the first place?
    By the way, the "law of gravity" is hardly a settled issue, hence the need of dark matter and dark energy. Gravity theory is off (when speaking of the universe as a whole) by orders of magnitude! That is like saying the difference between a grain of sand and 50 acres of sand. An order of magnitude is absolutely an enormous difference to the extreme. In other words, well over 90% of the universe doesn't behave like the "law of gravity" says it should.
    (When humans speak of natural laws" we are trying to describe what is happening in nature, not showing a rule book for how things "have to happen".)

    ---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Then, there is no point in reasoning with you.

    I said I am not looking for "reason" for the universe existing. You have no sound basis for making this comment. This sound like you are trying to make up a reason to not continue the conversation as if I am being "unreasonable".

    ---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------


    " There are several reasons that a population would practice inbreeding that span from religion to geography to royal bloodlines.* Many studies have shown that inbreeding can cause increases in mortality and morbidity.* As populations become more knowledgeable to these possible effects levels of inbreeding tend to decrease.* However, there are other populations that are less knowledgeable to the possible negative outcomes of inbreeding, and it is possible that the effects of inbreeding may not be detectable or visible.* Therefore, if there are harmful recessive alleles present in the population, the genes and characteristics still have the possibility of surfacing and negatively affecting a population, but it is very possible that the population will never see any harmful effects due to incest.* In fact, some experts believe that in some cases inbreeding can be helpful to a population by constantly exposing harmful recessive genes to selection.* By frequently exposing these genes to selection, the harmful alleles can become permanently eliminated from the population....However, most experts would agree that practicing outbreeding will provide a population with the best opportunity to achieve a high level of health."

    [/QUOTE]


    You should read your sources a bit more extensively. They mostly talk of cousins. You are suggesting that all of humanity came from one person (I know you think god changed the DNA in Adams rib when he made Eve), but even from two people, you can't make a viable population. There will be a growing number of defects that renders the population not being able to reproduce. And it would not take thousands of years.
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 30th, 2017 at 05:36 PM.

  12. #211
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You won't find truth without using reason (God given reason at that).
    But you seem to be changing what you are saying. Earlier you talked about "searching for reason", not "using reason".

    You don't search for reason. You search for truth (and use reason while searching for truth) or more to the point, you search for the truth on whether the universe has innate reason or not. To search for reason presupposes that it exists. If it doesn't exist, then you are searching for something that does not exist which is a waste of time. But searching for the truth is never a waste of time and therefore that is what one should be searching for.

  13. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  14. #212
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You won't find truth without using reason (God given reason at that).
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you seem to be changing what you are saying. Earlier you talked about "searching for reason", not "using reason".
    Where have I changed it? Belthazor was looking for truth. Truth and reason go hand in hand. Error/falsehood is improper reasoning.

    Here is the OP in context:

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    [1] What is there to reason out? Why are you trying to find reason in it if it is just random and impersonal? That reasoning worldview comes from the Christian system of thought, not the atheistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I am not trying to find "reason". A person is search of God would be on such a quest.
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Then, there is no point in reasoning with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I am searching for truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by PETER
    [2] You won't find truth without using reason (God given reason at that).
    [2] That last sentence is self-explanatory. [1] The first and the dialog in between led me to make that last statement.

    So, I'm asking what there is to reason out in an impersonal universe and how you arrive at reasoning beings from an unreasoning universe? Why do you keep finding reasons in a supposed unreasoning universe? Are we just making reasons up (If everything is ultimately relative regarding meaning then, I reject your relative meaning - the arrogance of a relative being to think he has absolute truth or a superior view of life when the next relative being thinks the opposite) or is there reasoning Being that transcends the universe in which we find the meaning?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You don't search for reason. You search for truth (and use reason while searching for truth) or more to the point, you search for the truth on whether the universe has innate reason or not...
    People search for reasons all the time. Scientists/People asking the "Why, What, Where, When, How" questions search for reason. They are searching for answers using reason. Truth and reason go hand in hand (as you even state). You can't have one without the other (in the sense that you have to have truth to reason rightly). Science is a quest for reason AND truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] To search for reason presupposes that it exists. If it doesn't exist, then you are searching for something that does not exist which is a waste of time. [2] But searching for the [3] truth is never a waste of time and therefore that is what one should be searching for.
    [1] Well, you are using it right now. Do you deny it exists? Are you just presupposing it exists?

    [2] The question is (and I know you have an aversion for questions - (^8), how do reasoning, conscious beings originate in a mindless, senseless, impersonal universe? Your worldview PRESUPPOSES they can (or else you would not be here, now, reasoning). Your worldview requires BLIND faith unless you can explain with certainty how and why it can. I don't know how you can because a relativistic, subjective being always has that doubt about their ability to reason it out truthfully unless they find an objective starting point.

    [3] What is truth? I have what is necessary for there to be truth - objective, omniscient, omnipotent Being and a revelation claimed (the Bible) to be from Him. I do not see your worldview having that ability to make sense of truth. I see your worldview borrowing from the Christian worldview when it reasons truth. I see your worldview compass as devoid of moral rightness unless it borrows from the Christian worldview.

    Peter

  15. #213
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, I'm asking what there is to reason out in an impersonal universe and how you arrive at reasoning beings from an unreasoning universe?
    When I forward the position that reasoning beings came from an unreasoning universe is when I will feel that I have an obligation to explain how such a thing happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why do you keep finding reasons in a supposed unreasoning universe? Are we just making reasons up (If everything is ultimately relative regarding meaning then, I reject your relative meaning - the arrogance of a relative being to think he has absolute truth or a superior view of life when the next relative being thinks the opposite) or is there reasoning Being that transcends the universe in which we find the meaning?
    Good question. I don't know the answer. And no one has been able to show me that they know the answer.

    I mean people have said that they know the answer but they can't seem to show evidence that their answer is correct. Nor have these people demonstrated that they are particularly smarter or wiser than me so I don't see why I should accept their answers unless they can prove they are right.

    I have to think that some people can't handle not knowing the answer so they are very quick to accept an answer regardless of how little actual evidence there is. Sure, the answer might tie things together and explain things but that only means that it's coherent and consistent - it doesn't mean that it's correct.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    People search for reasons all the time. Scientists/People asking the "Why, What, Where, When, How" questions search for reason. They are searching for answers using reason.
    Right. They USE reason to help them SEARCH FOR truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Truth and reason go hand in hand (as you even state). You can't have one without the other (in the sense that you have to have truth to reason rightly). Science is a quest for reason AND truth.
    Nope. You were right before. Again, they USE reason to help them SEARCH FOR truth.

    As an analogy, if Gold is "truth" and a compass (to help one head west to find the gold) is "reason", one uses the compass to help them find gold. They aren't searching the compass, they already have it. Likewise, we already have reason so we don't need to go looking for it.

    You seem to be conflating the kind of reason that people use to reason things out with the "reason that created the universe" and regarding that kind of reason, you don't go looking for it until you know it even exists. So the question is "Is there reason behind the universe" and the truth to be search for is whether this reason exists or not. So you don't search for the reason - you search for whether the reason exists. Well, maybe you personally don't since you think you know the answer but science hasn't answered that question yet, so science can only search for the truth on whether this reason exists.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [2] The question is (and I know you have an aversion for questions - (^8), how do reasoning, conscious beings originate in a mindless, senseless, impersonal universe? Your worldview PRESUPPOSES they can (or else you would not be here, now, reasoning). Your worldview requires BLIND faith unless you can explain with certainty how and why it can.
    And your worldview PRESUPPOSES that this can't or didn't happen and requires BLIND faith unless you can explain with certainty how and why it cannot or did not.

    And you are wrong about my world view. I'm an agnostic, remember? I don't have blind faith in any answers. I'm only convinced by evidence and neither side has given me the appropriate evidence to convince me that they are right.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [3] What is truth? I have what is necessary for there to be truth - objective, omniscient, omnipotent Being and a revelation claimed (the Bible) to be from Him. I do not see your worldview having that ability to make sense of truth. I see your worldview borrowing from the Christian worldview when it reasons truth. I see your worldview compass as devoid of moral rightness unless it borrows from the Christian worldview.
    Of course the biggest moral prohibition is on murder and this prohibition would exist without Christianity as it can be seen that in places that aren't primarily Christian (most of the world's population is not Christian), people still think murder is morally wrong and it stands to reason that if Christianity wasn't present in my life, I probably would still be against murder.

    So while I agree with many Christian moral viewpoints I don't need to "borrow" them in order to have them. I would likely have them anyway.
    Last edited by mican333; September 3rd, 2017 at 12:09 PM.

  16. #214
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    In a universe devoid of God there is no ultimate sense to be made of anything - it just is (for no reason).
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1] I realize you don't like the idea, but you haven't supported why a universe without a God could not exist.

    [2] Why must the universe make "sense"?
    [1] a) The point is that my Christian worldview CAN make sense of the overall picture, your worldview can't. It does not have what is NECESSARY to do so.

    YOU can't make sense of it. I can. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."

    How does your worldview answer origins?
    What caused the BB, and WHY?
    What caused conscious beings and life, and why?
    Which relative, subjective human being decides for the rest what SHOULD be, and what is their measure that is BEST?

    b) How do relative, subjective beings make sense of morality when there are opposing views on what is good. What is the basis for mankind's measure?

    [2] The point is that we can make sense of some of it - the ways things work (or are you affirming that there is nothing we can make sense of in the universe?).

    Why can we make sense of some of it in a senseless universe?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    My answer: So what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1] I was trying to show you that ALL known life shares some DNA in common. From a fish, monkey, trees, fungus, birds, dinosaurs, all known life is related. Because we ALL share a common ancestry. And all know life did not did not originate with two humans, but from much simpler forms of life.
    Humans breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. From an evolution standpoint, this makes sense. From Adam and Eve it does not.
    The Christian reason is that we were all made to inhabit a planet, so God supplied what is needed for all life to do this, thus we have commmonality. For you, all life comes from a common ancestor (which, btw, is a presupposition your worldview is grilled on and accepts), but you don't know how that ancestor got here. There are various theories on how this happened, how spontaneous generation (defunct by the present paradigm),

    https://www.britannica.com/science/s...ous-generation

    or abiogenesis,

    https://www.britannica.com/science/a...sis#ref1118861

    or life arising from chemicals mixing (physics and chemistry) in more complex ways happened,

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...99EA&FORM=VIRE

    or some other method which resulted in life.

    The scientific method is only as good as its paradigm on questions of origins. These keep changing as new information blows apart current models and replaces them with newer ones. When will you ever arrive at the truth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    (aside: I don't see that humans have "dominion" over the rest of life on earth. All sorts of "living" diseases kill humans daily as well as numerous animals from hippopotamus to bees.)
    No other life form on earth can manipulate and change its environment to the extent humans do. We dominate animals, and we can find ways to combat diseases, even though they reminded us of the Fall when God cursed the earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Why is it BETTER to survive in a meaningless universe? Why should I think along the lines you are proposing? Why not think like Kim Jong-un and look out for my well-being rather than the well-being of others, unless it suits my purposes for a brief period of time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    When did I say it would be "better". I told you, I am looking for truth. Truth and better have nothing to do with each other.
    Your worldview does not have what is necessary to have "better" and TRUTH is a moral issue (so truth has everything to do with morality).

    If you think otherwise then, I would be interested in hearing your view so I can dissect it and find out why you would hold such a view if you did not think it BETTER than other views??? Obviously you believe your view is superior, or else why would you hold it?

    Is not truth BETTER than falsehood???

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    My answer: So what?
    God is truth.
    He has revealed Himself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If he had what need of faith?
    Why should faith be needed anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    BECAUSE IT DEFIES LOGIC. You can't make sense of morality without an objective standard just like you can't make sense of a crooked line unless you have a standard of straightness in the physical world. There has to be an objective (best) measure in the physical world of weights and measures yet you can't materialize one in the abstract world of morality without a mindful being and an objective being at that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1]And yet, this may be exactly the "world" we live in, [2] since no one knows for sure if God exists. [3] Subjective morality may be all we have.
    I know you believe strongly that God does exist, but [4] it's hardly a given or we wouldn't be able to argue about it
    [1] It may be the world you live in; it is not the world I inhabit mentally.

    [2] Here you are making an ABSOLUTE statement. How do you KNOW that no one knows? You just ASSUME it.

    [3] The problem with statements like "Subjective morality may be all we have," is that it can't make sense of anything yet masquerades as if it can. It pretends to offer a viable opinion but can't demonstrate it is viable.

    [4] I would argue it is a given - given by God. The Bible is proof/evidence. Prophecy is the avenue I use to establish this.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    ON FAITH you believe that humanity could have come up with the idea of meaning by themselves. The problem is that you first have to get to the point of conscious beings without necessary reasoning Being as the process of making them. You just materialize consciousness and humanity, the universe and life, out of nothing. Then you say - "No reason necessary!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1]Not really. If rape. murder, theft, assaults were the norm, that society would die off. [2]You just can't have groups of humans (or any other animal) living in close proximity, without some sort of order/rules/codes of conduct. [3]A colony of ants would not be able to survive without it. They don't have a God (hmmm, to be able to read another animals thoughts....) and they generally still behave in ways that help their "society". So do apes, ducks, well any social animal. Kinda by definition or they wouldn't be "social" animals.

    If other animals can do it, why not humans?
    [1] How do you know murder is WRONG? Is it something you FEEL (just an OPINION), or is there a fixed and final standard you use to determine this? If not, then WHY is your opinion any BETTER than Kim Jong-un who is looking at self-preservation at all costs and will use whatever means he needs to, including mass genocide. Do you think he cares if you live or die? He does not care if your society dies off. He cares about himself.

    If you believe your opinion is BETTER than that of mine or someone else then what is the standard that is the "BEST" you use in determining this?

    [2] With Kim Jong-un that rule, or order, is power. He has the power and is willing to use it. Is that right? If you say no, what makes it wrong - again, just your personal opinion or a joint group of personal beliefs? Again, what ultimate standard do you have to measure rightness?

    If it is a relative standard, then you are begging the question of why your standard is any better than any other.

    [3] What do you think ants, or ducks, or apes, know of morality?

    A lion can be a social animal at times. Does he debate over whether it is moral to kill another animal? Does he care whether or not the antelope dies?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How do you get LAWS? We DISCOVER the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, logic, mathematics, etc. We don't make them up, yet without a mind/minds to think them would they exist? What do you think? How do you grab hold of the laws of logic in a material universe? Grab hold of the concept of E=MC2. How do you do that? Are these laws PHYSICAL or are they concepts we discover that helps us to EXPLAIN the physical world? How can something material produce something abstract and immaterial in the first place?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1] By the way, the "law of gravity" is hardly a settled issue, hence the need of dark matter and dark energy. Gravity theory is off (when speaking of the universe as a whole) by orders of magnitude! That is like saying the difference between a grain of sand and 50 acres of sand. An order of magnitude is absolutely an enormous difference to the extreme. In other words, well over 90% of the universe doesn't behave like the "law of gravity" says it should.
    (When humans speak of natural laws" we are trying to describe what is happening in nature, not showing a rule book for how things "have to happen".)
    [1] Did we make it up or discover it? IOW's, is there such a law that we can predict things by using?

    The issue of gravity, although not a constant in all places, is determined in some situations (on earth we know how a falling object will react). We can predict an objects rate of falling where elevations, tides, rotation of the earth, the mass of the object and other factors are considered. THUS, we can PREDICT (do science) how things will react or plot their trajectory. We RECOGNIZE gravity throughout the universe by the way objects such as suns, moon, planets, solar systems; galaxies work to some degree in their orbits. THUS, we can KNOW dates and times and seasons, etc., because gravity keeps things constant. Granted there is still much to discover in gravities operation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Then, there is no point in reasoning with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1] I said I am not looking for "reason" for the universe existing. [2] You have no sound basis for making this comment. [3] This sound like you are trying to make up a reason to not continue the conversation as if I am being "unreasonable".
    [1] Then don't expect to find any.

    [2] I do have a basis with what you gave me. If you have no reason for the universe existing then why are there reasons?

    Are there reasons or are we just inventing them?

    [3] No, I am most willing to continue. It would be pointless to reason with you if you are not searching for the reason to trust what you believe as true. I was just pointing out what I regard as the inconsistency in your thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    There are several reasons that a population would practice inbreeding that span from religion to geography to royal bloodlines.* Many studies have shown that inbreeding can cause increases in mortality and morbidity.* As populations become more knowledgeable to these possible effects levels of inbreeding tend to decrease.* However, there are other populations that are less knowledgeable to the possible negative outcomes of inbreeding, and it is possible that the effects of inbreeding may not be detectable or visible.* Therefore, if there are harmful recessive alleles present in the population, the genes and characteristics still have the possibility of surfacing and negatively affecting a population, but it is very possible that the population will never see any harmful effects due to incest.* In fact, some experts believe that in some cases inbreeding can be helpful to a population by constantly exposing harmful recessive genes to selection.* By frequently exposing these genes to selection, the harmful alleles can become permanently eliminated from the population....However, most experts would agree that practicing outbreeding will provide a population with the best opportunity to achieve a high level of health."

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    [1] You should read your sources a bit more extensively. They mostly talk of cousins. [2] You are suggesting that all of humanity came from one person (I know you think god changed the DNA in Adams rib when he made Eve), but [3] even from two people, you can't make a viable population. [4] There will be a growing number of defects that renders the population not being able to reproduce. And it would not take thousands of years.
    [1] No, you made this claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    It's much more than a possibility. Inbreeding will lead to abnormalities.
    I showed you that inbreeding DOES NOT ALWAYS lead to abnormalities. It disproved your statement as MORE THAN A POSSIBILITY. It depends on the genes that are shared by two mating individuals. If you read the article, you would have seen that there was a defect in the gene pool of Queen Victoria that carried on into future generations until they bred outside the family circles, but in some societies, the inbreeding examples used did not cause genetic mutations any greater than outbreeding in the same society.

    "Study of European Royal Families
    *********** *
    Inbreeding was very common among the royal families of Europe, and it has been linked as the cause of the widespread number of cases of hemophilia in the families.* The presence of hemophilia in the royalty of Europe started with Queen Victoria of England.* Victoria is thought to be the original carrier for the recessive X-linked hemophilia gene, which lead to over twenty members of royal families inheriting the disease in just over 100 years."

    "Study on a Population in Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    ***********
    Dammam is the capital city of the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.* The population of Dammam is estimated to close to two-hundred thousand, and the rate of consanguineous marriages is around 52%, which is higher than the average rates of most countries and providences in the Middle East and the surrounding area.* First-cousin marriages dominated all forms of marriage in Dammam accounting for 39.3% of the unions.* The high rates of consanguineous marriages lead to a relatively high inbreeding coefficient of 0.0312.* These high rates of inbreeding were thought to be due to beliefs, culture, and to keep property within the family.
    *********** A study was performed on the population from Dammam to see how inbreeding could affect certain aspects of offspring's health.* The study first looked at "Reproductive wastage,"* which was defined as the number of stillbirths, childhood death's in the first month of life, and childhood deaths during the first year of life.* This study showed no real significant differences in "reproductive wastage" between consanguineous and non-consanguineous marriages.* Moreover, birth weights were also examined and no significant differences were seen between mean birth weights of children from consanguineous marriages and children from out breeding relationships.* These results were somewhat different from other studies performed that showed inbreeding to have negative affects on offspring.
    *********** This study shows that inbreeding is not always harmful and can produce perfectly normal offspring.* In fact, some investigators believe that long-term practice of inbreeding can actually benefit a population and its health by reducing deleterious or harmful genes (Al-Abdulkareen 1998).* The reduction of these harmful genes is thought to be a result of an increased frequency of the deleterious gene's presence which can make it more vulnerable to selection.* Therefore, selection could eliminate the harmful gene if it is given ample time to "act" on it (Hedrick 1991)."

    [2] You are suggesting that all humanity AND every living thing came from a COMMON ANCESTOR too. The difference is that you take similarities between KINDS and you REASON that because of these similarities everything can be traced back to a common, simple life form. That is where we differ in our view of commonality. What I believe and what I witness confirms my biblical view. With your worldview, you NEVER see what you are proposing, a changed species. You presuppose it because you interpret the DATA differently. What I witness is each kind producing according to its kind. We see human beings coming from human beings and dogs coming from other dogs.

    [3] From TWO people you can make a viable population.

    [4] The defects would become apparent the more beings reproduced because of the Fall and God's curse. But from the beginning, it was ALL "very good." Only when Adam sinned did God provide consequences, just as He promised He would. Death and decay, in the Christian worldview, came with the Fall of Adam.

    Peter

  17. #215
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] a) The point is that my Christian worldview CAN make sense of the overall picture, your worldview can't. It does not have what is NECESSARY to do so.
    YOU can't make sense of it. I can. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."
    How does your worldview answer origins?

    Sure the Christian point of view provides possible answers to existence and that is fine...........if it's true. Like I said, I'm searching for truth, if Christianity is true, I'm fine with that.

    What is this world view you keep ascribing to me. I think I have mostly asked questions, not promoted any particular viewpoint.
    That I am questioning your point of view says little to my own view.

    ---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What caused the BB, and WHY?
    What caused conscious beings and life, and why?
    Which relative, subjective human being decides for the rest what SHOULD be, and what is their measure that is BEST?

    Your first two questions are very interesting to me, and partly why we are talking

    Your last question doesn't really work. If there were no God, why would a "subjective human being decides for the rest what SHOULD be, and what is their measure that is BEST?"

    Indeed, there may be no God and what we see is what you would expect if that was the case. Different civilizations thru history have had different morals.

    Tell me. If "we" hadn't introduced Christianity to "Hawaii" (for instance), those people would never have heard of Jesus. Why would he only travel in the middle east? Why not China? Australia? Or any other place on earth?
    And why don't Muslims and Jews who have the same history in the middle east disagree that Jesus was God . They were there to witness the same things as Christians?

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The scientific method is only as good as its paradigm on questions of origins. These keep changing as new information blows apart current models and replaces them with newer ones. When will you ever arrive at the truth?

    I hear this kind of comment a lot. Let's go back to the theory of gravity for a minute.

    Newton nailed it! His explanation works great here on earth, but it breaks down when we apply it to the solar system. Our current theory of gravity works well for solar systems and even galaxies to an extent. But it's WRONG! By the most amount any theory has been wrong ever, when applied to the universe as a whole.

    Point being, our current theory of gravity didn't "blow apart" Newton's theory of gravity, it added/expanded to it.

    ---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    [1] It may be the world you live in; it is not the world I inhabit mentally.

    [2] Here you are making an ABSOLUTE statement. How do you KNOW that no one knows? You just ASSUME it.

    [3] The problem with statements like "Subjective morality may be all we have," is that it can't make sense of anything yet masquerades as if it can. It pretends to offer a viable opinion but can't demonstrate it is viable.

    [4] I would argue it is a given - given by God. The Bible is proof/evidence. Prophecy is the avenue I use to establish this.

    (1) While I agree you "mentally" don't live there, this does not in any way necessarily = truth of this view.
    (2) Well, since faith of God's existence is required by Christianity, it's not really that much of an assumption. I know you will argue this point, but if God really wanted us to fallow, and our eternity depended on it, he would make it easy to know he actually exists and the Bible is his word.
    (3) If God does not exist, subjective morals are indeed all we have (which also seems to mirror how the world actually behaves). That it might not make "sense" to humans is really immaterial....
    (4) If you could prove the Bible is God's word, then no problem, then I will accept that truth. Can you do that?
    (4a) How come when Haley predicted the return of a particular comet so many yrs ago he gave date, time, and direction of arrival of that comet. Bible prophesy is quite vague.
    (4b) If God knows everything about everything, why "test" Job (just a for instance)? He already knew how job would react in any given situation. Why let him get tortured by the devil to prove he is right?
    (4c) I thought Adam and Eve were kicked out of Heaven because God could not be around "sin"? He had quite the conversation with the devil about Job, which opens up multiple issues with the whole story line....

    ---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I showed you that inbreeding DOES NOT ALWAYS lead to abnormalities. It disproved your statement as MORE THAN A POSSIBILITY.

    You have not shown that you can start with one (or two) humans and make a viable population. A lot of work is being done in this area with regards to colonizing other worlds. Nobody recommends starting with two people as it will not lead to progressive abnormalities.
    The more people , the more cost. If it could be done safely/effectively it would be proposed.
    The laws against incest are not because of the "ewww" factor! It is out of concern for the child of such a relationship due to inbreeding will result in abnormalities.
    It's a fact and a human law for that very reason.
    You are the only person I have ever talked to that openly supported direct incest.

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] Then don't expect to find any.

    Again, if I was "looking for God" I have little doubt of finding "him".

    But I am looking for truth....so not so much
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 6th, 2017 at 07:58 PM.

  18. #216
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    An enormous asteroid recently passed by earth. Had it hit, humans civilization would have been destroyed???
    Is it your position that the Bible is the moral model we should use today, in such a situation for anyone that survived?

  19. #217
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true (whether we can observe that these things are true or not). If you think I'm saying something else, then you don't understand what I'm saying.
    It's not that I think you've been something else, you HAVE been saying very different things about objective morality throughout the thread:

    OP - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which are forwarded by God, and people are always correct if they follow them.
    Post 114 - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which God whispers in people's ears.
    Post 153 - Objective morality is not made up of pronouncements, but is defined simply as something which exists that was created by God.
    Post 163 - Objective morality is defined as something which God created that is objectivey true.
    Post 166 - Objective morality is made up of objective moral positions which are objectively true.
    Post 175 - Objective morality is something which exists either by being created by God, or by being forwarded by God as moral pronouncements.
    Now - Objective morality is made up of moral positions which are objectively correct, and no objective source is apparently required, which brings the entire pointless OP into question.

    Furthermore, throughough the thread you have also flip-flopped wildly on whether morality is only either objective or subjective - ie. that one precludes the other, or that morality can/can't be both:

    OP - Morality is or isn't a human construct (objective and subjective morality preclude each other).
    Post 137 - I didn't claim they preclude each other.
    Post 151 - ... if morality is objective (preclusion again).
    Post 153 - I'm not saying both can't exist.
    Post 158 - So if morality is objective (preclusion again).
    Same post, but you edited it out - In other words, there would be two types of morality: objective and subjective (no preclusion).
    Post 166 - If morality is objective (preclusion again).

    Clearly even you don't understand what you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    They are both objectively true (if objective morality exists, that is).
    This is not support that a comparison between objective morality as you have (not) defined it and verified facts is valid, since you are again simply claiming that morality would be an objectively true fact, without coherently explaining what it is or how it could be a verifiable fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not wildly different. I just removed the part that was apparently causing you confusion (being observed). The are similar in that they both actually exist.
    You are simply making the claim that the similarity is that they both exist. Again, saying that it simply exists says nothing about what it actually is, which is why the comparison is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No I haven't. That's just your misinterpretation of my argument. Again, the problem is not my argument but your failure to comprehend it. YOU are the one who is comparing objective morality to a scientific phenomena. That is not part of my argument at all.
    And this is where you lose the most credibility. From the very beginning, you've tried to argue that if an objective source of objective morality exists, then the objective morality would be the same as objective facts we've observed. Only recently, when this comparison was criticised as being invalid, did you offer the alternative of something that is not observed, only claimed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, it's pretty much what's in the dictionary.
    a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
    No. This is the definition of the adjective "moral", not the noun "morality".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I think I'm done addressing this kind of thing. From my perspective, the OP is coherent and the common person can understand it. I think reasonable requests to clarify something is fine but when one's primary tactic is apparently to claim that they don't understand my argument, I don't feel much obligation to keep on explaining what I mean.
    If you no longer wish to provide support for why your argument should be considered rational and coherent, then by all means, say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When it gets to the point where I use a common dictionary definition for a very common word that ANYONE should already know the definition of and one says that the definition is "incoherent", I would say that attempting to explain my argument further in the hopes of effectively communication it is a lost cause.
    What, by offering the definition of an adjective instead of explaining what that thing is? I'm sorry, but when someone who doesn't know what a car is asks you what that thing is and you respond with, it's large, and then complain when that person doesn't understand you, it's your fault, not the other guy's.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if you don't understand my argument, I'm sorry. But I've done enough clarifying and explaining. It's time to either provide a rebuttal or move on.
    Again, it's not my fault you can't present a coherent definition of the terms used in your argument, and pointing out such issues is a perfectly valid rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The word "create" has explanatory power. If you can't understand what "create" means without me providing examples of it, I'm sorry but I'm not going to explain what the word means.
    "Create" has no power to explain what something is. If I say I created a "gogulmogul", does that explain what it is? Again, you can't just call it "objective morality", not define what that is, just say it was created, and hope that what you're talking about would magically be made clear for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm sorry you still don't understand what "objective morality" means. I honestly tried my best to explain it to you.
    OP - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which are forwarded by God, and people are always correct if they follow them.
    Post 114 - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which God whispers in people's ears.
    Post 153 - Objective morality is not made up of pronouncements, but is defined simply as something which exists that was created by God.
    Post 163 - Objective morality is defined as something which God created that is objectivey true.
    Post 166 - Objective morality is made up of objective moral positions which are objectively true.
    Post 175 - Objective morality is something which exists either by being created by God, or by being forwarded by God as moral pronouncements.
    Now - Objective morality is made up of moral positions which are objectively correct, and no objective source is apparently required.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that someone who CLAIMED the world was round would have an advantage. I said a person who KNEW the world was round would have an advantage. In my scenario the world is round and the person KNOWS that it's round. That information would give him advantage over all of those who were holding incorrect beliefs. For example, he would know that sailing expeditions will not fall off the edge of the earth, giving him an advantage when it comes to decision to invest in or join such an endeavor.
    Again, without support for how anyone could have actual knowledge of such things, there is no advantage. You're doing the same thing here as with your definition of objective morality. Just saying that it's so doesn't magically make it clear and rational.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I never compared morals with scientific facts. I never invoked science - that's your red herring, not my argument.
    I'm sorry to break this to you, but facts about our universe such as the shape of the earth are scientific facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Nope. My argument assumes that whoever cares to debate it understands what "objective morality" means. But yes, to those who have no idea what it means, my argument is not very coherent.
    Again, since you have taken it upon yourself to define and re-define objective morality throughout the thread, this jab is irrational. It's like that guy with the car again, who keeps telling you he doesn't know what you're talking about when you tell him it's big, then tell him it was made by someone, then that it simply exists.

    In any case, since you have defined objective morality as not requiring an objective source, we can now have an actually worthwhile discussion about secular morality and why it's superior to anyone claiming morality comes from an objective source.

  20. #218
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Futureboy,

    I'm sorry you can't understand my argument. Other people don't seem to have that problem as they have made relevant responses.

    But either way I looked over your post and I see nothing but complaining about how it's incoherent and it's my fault that it's incoherent. I disagree with that it's my fault (the whole "observed" issue was never present in my argument but introduced by you so at least that bit of confusion was introduced by you). But either way, this is not a line of debate that I will be engaging in. If you can't understand my argument and I can't explain it to you in a fashion that would allow you to understand it (which from all indications is the case), then we have no common ground to debate the OP.

    I've made my argument in the OP. If you have a rebuttal, present it. If you can't or won't for any reason, be the reason your fault or mine, then you have no rebuttal and really nothing to offer the debate forwarded in the thread.

  21. #219
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    The fact that there are others participating who have not raised these issues does nothing to prove that there are no issues.

    These are the main issues which have been raised as rebuttals to your argument:

    1. Your ever-changing definition of objective morality:
    OP - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which are forwarded by God, and people are always correct if they follow them.
    Post 114 - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which God whispers in people's ears.
    Post 153 - Objective morality is not made up of pronouncements, but is defined simply as something which exists that was created by God.
    Post 163 - Objective morality is defined as something which God created that is objectively true.
    Post 166 - Objective morality is made up of objective moral positions which are objectively true.
    Post 175 - Objective morality is something which exists either by being created by God, or by being forwarded by God as moral pronouncements.
    Now - Objective morality is made up of moral positions which are objectively correct, and no objective source is apparently required.
    Please confirm which definition you are using in your OP.

    2. Your flip-flopping on whether objective morality and subjective morality preclude each other:
    OP - Morality is or isn't a human construct (objective and subjective morality preclude each other).
    Post 137 - I didn't claim they preclude each other.
    Post 151 - ... if morality is objective (preclusion again).
    Post 153 - I'm not saying both can't exist.
    Post 158 - So if morality is objective (preclusion again).
    Same post, but you edited it out - In other words, there would be two types of morality: objective and subjective (no preclusion).
    Post 166 - If morality is objective (preclusion again).
    Please confirm whether they preclude each other for the purposes of your OP.

    3. Your attempt to define objective morality using the dictionary definition of the adjective "moral":
    This is not a definition of something, but a characteristic of something.

    4. Your claim that the word "create" is able to explain what something is.
    Saying something was created does nothing to explain what that something is. "Gogulmogul" was created - do you now have an explanation of what "gogulmogul" is?

    Again, just because others are finding other things to discuss regarding your argument doesn't mean that these issues don't exist and that you don't need to respond to them.

    I have clearly communicated what's wrong using specific references to your posts, and you are ignoring the issues raised. As I stated in my last post: If you don't wish to support why your argument should be considered coherent, please say so.

  22. #220
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The fact that there are others participating who have not raised these issues does nothing to prove that there are no issues.
    It proves that my argument is not inherently incoherent. In other words, the only person who finds the OP incoherent is you. And you have shown me by introducing something to my argument that was never there to begin with is that at least in part the communication problem is your fault. That doesn't mean that there aren't also problems that are my fault but either way, I'm not interested in hashing out whose fault it is.

    I'm interested in rebuttals to my OP, not complaints about incoherence and whose to blame for the misunderstandings.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, just because others are finding other things to discuss regarding your argument doesn't mean that these issues don't exist and that you don't need to respond to them.
    I will address any arguments that attempt to show that my argument in the OP is incorrect. Arguing that my OP is incomprehensible does not show that it is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I have clearly communicated what's wrong using specific references to your posts, and you are ignoring the issues raised.
    Because none of the issues you are raising equate to rebuttals to my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As I stated in my last post: If you don't wish to support why your argument should be considered coherent, please say so.
    I don't argue that you should consider my argument coherent. If someone doesn't find my argument coherent and therefore cannot offer a rebuttal, then they have no rebuttal.

 

 
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Objective Morality and atheism
    By CliveStaples in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: September 16th, 2012, 02:36 PM
  2. Is God Necessary for Objective Morality?
    By estill in forum Religion
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
  3. Objective morality is effectively useless
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 06:59 AM
  4. Subjective Morality Is Pointless
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: September 7th, 2011, 07:00 PM
  5. Subjective Morality
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 07:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •