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 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 291
  1. #141
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] I'm playing the agnostic. [2] And while you seem to be critical of that position, I think there is only one logical response to not knowing certain answers - admit you don't know them. What else can one do? [3] Make up an answer that has no evidence and use that as your answer?
    [1] Okay, fine, but why would a Christian defend agnosticism? You are not doing the truth justice if you believe God's word is true and yet set up arguments against it. I want others to know the truth that will set them free (John 8:32)!

    [2] I don't think agnosticism is a logical response. The logical answer is to find what can and does make sense, what is logical. If the universe is without ultimate meaning, then there is no point in looking for it. If the universe is without ultimate meaning, then there is no logic to it. Most worldviews seem to come at it as if there are sense and logic to be found. They look for sense and provide meaning that would not ultimately be there if their position were correct. If their position were true, there would be ultimate meaninglessness, no reason for logic.

    [3] Find the correct answer that has sufficient evidence! There is only one!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I can defend agnosticism by pointing out that no one has ever proven that God does or does not exist.
    Not true. People have come to faith in believing the evidence of the resurrection, the Word of God, the prophetic evidence, the testimony of Jesus throughout the Bible and a host of other evidence. These reasons are convincing proof of God.

    With proof, no matter how reasonable it is, some will not believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if you are going to argue that God does exist, you need to provide evidence that will convince those who aren't already convinced as you are. Until you do, you have no supported that the Christian God exists.
    I can provide evidence/proof that is logical, and consistent. No matter how consistent, or logical, or reasonable the proof/evidence does not bring someone to faith without the will to trust the evidence and believe God.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] Accurate prophecy only establishes foresight. [2] Foresight, even supernatural foresight, does not prove that there's a God. If we allow for the supernatural (which we must if we hold that accurate prophecy exists), then there are a practically endless number of ways that one can have accurate foresight. [3] For example, if the supernatural can happen, then a sorcerer can cast a spell that allows him to see the future and he can present that without being God. [4] Or maybe aliens or a secret advanced civilizations develop the means to look into the future.

    [5] And that even assumes that the prophecies are all that accurate and specific. One can certainly read a lot into vague prophecies to make them seem accurate.

    [6] You seem to be explaining why you are convinced but you aren't presenting any reason for someone else to be convinced.
    [1] It establishes that what was said to happen happened, therefore it was true. It is a confirmation/proof that the claims are true. Since 1/3 (I think) of the Bible is prophetic, it is reasonable to believe what it says on other topics is also reasonable to believe.

    [2] Show me a human being in history that can predict the future with 100% accuracy, in hundreds of prophecies, in some cases over hundreds or thousands of years, and they come to pass, as said. It is reasonable proof it is of God.

    [3] The Bible gives us every reason to believe in God. You can make any excuse and give any unlikely explanation, but the Bible tells you it is the Word of God.

    [4] Again, aliens are not the answer the Bible gives. If they are aliens, there is no reason to trust anything they have to say. They falsely disclosed they were something other than what they were.

    [5] The evidence is there. What I continually hear from unbelievers is there is no evidence for God. I offer to show them there is and that it is reasonable and logical. They deny it without even hearing the evidence. They turn a blind eye, block their ears, close their hearts, and continue with their assumptions of no evidence.

    I challenge you to show me the prophecies are vague by taking either the Olivet Discourse or Revelation as our example. The reason I take the Olivet address by Jesus is that it is a hub of prophecy that radiates out into many biblical books. The reason for choosing Revelation is that it contains more OT prophecy (fulfillment) than any other NT book.

    I would also challenge you on another level. Show me it is reasonable to believe ANY NT book is written after A.D. 70.

    Are you willing, or are your allegations all hot air?

    [6] I have challenged those who doubt to refute 1) prophecy is true, 2) that it is not from God, 3) that it is not logical or reasonable to believe when looking at the evidence we have available.

    Peter

  2. #142
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then even if an objective source is demonstrated, it would not negate the existence of the human sources of morality, or its use/implementation.
    No, but it would be superior to it in the same way that KNOWING that the Earth is round is superior to have an opinion on the shape of the earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, humans aren’t “the source of morality”, they’re the source of the morality of which they are the source, and there is no question about this in the scientific community. Whether there are or may be other sources of other kinds of morality is another question altogether. The support that humans are the source of human morality is that the morals coming from the human source have developed over time. Their development shows a direct correlation with the development of humans as we learn more. Other species' morality directly correlates to their societal development. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality):
    The evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior and not much thought is given to the social conducts of other creatures. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have argued that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals.
    I've looked through your links and as far I can tell, you are not forwarding proof that morality comes from evolution but just presenting certain people arguing that this is the case and none of the theories forwarded have been widely accepted. For example, with what you pasted from the wikipedia article, you omitted this:

    "Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial."

    And that seems to be the same for all of your support - no one has proven that this is the case but just that some people think that it is so.

    Also, I don't think a proving that there is a biological source of morality show that there is no objective morality. If one believes that God exists (typically defined as the creator of the universe and the primary source of morality) then all that is is what God wants it to be so even a biological explanation of morality can stem from this objective source. In other words, if objective morality exists in that fashion, the reason that biological morality exists is because God designed us, including every species of life, to be moral in that fashion. Or to put it another way, biological morality stems from objective morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is not supported. Please demonstrate why the existence of an objective source would mean that any morality it forwards would be anything more than moral pronouncements. Sure, it would be a fact that the source said something about morals, but you have not supported how you get from there to “the morals are facts”.
    I'm not getting there that way. I'm getting there from the very definition of the word "objective". If it's an objective fact that, say, murder is immoral, then it's a fact that it is.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    They don’t preclude each other, to which you agreed. So your statement of “if morality is subjective” makes no sense. Since they don’t preclude each other, it’s not “morality is subjective” or “morality is objective”, it’s “this morality (from a subjective source) is subjective” or “this morality (from an objective source) is objective”. You keep talking about morality itself as though it’s either subjective or objective, when you have not supported that this is the case.
    But this is really just semantics. One can subjectively believe that the Earth is flat and that would qualify as a "subjective" belief about the shape of the Earth coming from a person. That doesn't change the fact that it's objectively true that the Earth is round. So what the shape of the Earth is is both objective and subjective for there is nothing preventing someone from having a subjective opinion on something which is factually true or untrue.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Since they don’t preclude each other, this statement is irrational. So far we’ve established that human morality (from human sources) exists, and that it’s maybe possible that there exists an objective moral source which forwards its own morals.
    We are referring to human morality here. So if there is an objective source that has created our morality but we don't recognize it as such and instead make up our own answers, our answers are inferior to the correct answers. It's like making up our own answers about the shape of the Earth compared to the objective truth about the shape of the Earth. Yes, both the human-invented answer and the real answer exists, but obviously the real answer is the superior answer for it is objectively correct and there is no room for doubt, unlike the human-created answers.

  3. #143
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] Okay, fine, but why would a Christian defend agnosticism? You are not doing the truth justice if you believe God's word is true and yet set up arguments against it. I want others to know the truth that will set them free (John 8:32)!

    [2] I don't think agnosticism is a logical response. The logical answer is to find what can and does make sense, what is logical. If the universe is without ultimate meaning, then there is no point in looking for it. If the universe is without ultimate meaning, then there is no logic to it. Most worldviews seem to come at it as if there are sense and logic to be found. They look for sense and provide meaning that would not ultimately be there if their position were correct. If their position were true, there would be ultimate meaninglessness, no reason for logic.

    [3] Find the correct answer that has sufficient evidence! There is only one!



    Not true. People have come to faith in believing the evidence of the resurrection, the Word of God, the prophetic evidence, the testimony of Jesus throughout the Bible and a host of other evidence. These reasons are convincing proof of God.

    With proof, no matter how reasonable it is, some will not believe.



    I can provide evidence/proof that is logical, and consistent. No matter how consistent, or logical, or reasonable the proof/evidence does not bring someone to faith without the will to trust the evidence and believe God.



    [1] It establishes that what was said to happen happened, therefore it was true. It is a confirmation/proof that the claims are true. Since 1/3 (I think) of the Bible is prophetic, it is reasonable to believe what it says on other topics is also reasonable to believe.

    [2] Show me a human being in history that can predict the future with 100% accuracy, in hundreds of prophecies, in some cases over hundreds or thousands of years, and they come to pass, as said. It is reasonable proof it is of God.

    [3] The Bible gives us every reason to believe in God. You can make any excuse and give any unlikely explanation, but the Bible tells you it is the Word of God.

    [4] Again, aliens are not the answer the Bible gives. If they are aliens, there is no reason to trust anything they have to say. They falsely disclosed they were something other than what they were.

    [5] The evidence is there. What I continually hear from unbelievers is there is no evidence for God. I offer to show them there is and that it is reasonable and logical. They deny it without even hearing the evidence. They turn a blind eye, block their ears, close their hearts, and continue with their assumptions of no evidence.

    I challenge you to show me the prophecies are vague by taking either the Olivet Discourse or Revelation as our example. The reason I take the Olivet address by Jesus is that it is a hub of prophecy that radiates out into many biblical books. The reason for choosing Revelation is that it contains more OT prophecy (fulfillment) than any other NT book.

    I would also challenge you on another level. Show me it is reasonable to believe ANY NT book is written after A.D. 70.

    Are you willing, or are your allegations all hot air?

    [6] I have challenged those who doubt to refute 1) prophecy is true, 2) that it is not from God, 3) that it is not logical or reasonable to believe when looking at the evidence we have available.

    Peter

    It appears that Jews and Muslims (for instance) have a little different take on the same history. They don't believe in the miracles of Jesus (though they do reference him as a man). They make remarkably similar claims of truth to the ones you have just made with regards to evidence. What makes your "evidence" superior to "their evidence"?

    Did you research Muslim, Jewish or other beliefs before you became Christian?


    What is the value of faith? Why is it basically a requirement?
    From what I have read in the Bible about God, the faith requirement seems pretty iffy. If the Christian God's desires match what is said in the Bible, it seems logical (to me at least) that there would be a way to know for sure you were fallowing the right path, given the gravity of that decision.
    I have heard free will argued as the reason for a faith requirement, but if you believe in the Bible and resurrection etc, God has many, many times shown himself and/powers.
    Indeed, how can it be said you have free will to make a decision at all if you don't know for sure what the choices are? Especially a decision that involves eternity.
    Perhaps my definition of faith doesn't apply in this case for some reason?

  4. #144
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It appears that Jews and Muslims (for instance) have a little different take on the same history. They don't believe in the miracles of Jesus (though they do reference him as a man). They make remarkably similar claims of truth to the ones you have just made with regards to evidence. What makes your "evidence" superior to "their evidence"?
    Yes, they do have a different take on history, but all three religious beliefs utilize the OT. The OT Jews rejected their Messiah. The Jews of today, I believe I can show, can no longer meet the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant because God abolished it. They are NOT the same Jews the Bible speaks of who were under covenant with God.

    Islam, it seems, is a religion influenced by at least four different faiths - Judaism, aberrant Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and regional pagan tribes (some of whom worshiped the goddess of the half moon).

    Judaism does not recognize that the Torah (Law), Psalms and Prophets have been fulfilled.

    Christianity is the fulfillment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Did you research Muslim, Jewish or other beliefs before you became Christian?
    No, after.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What is the value of faith?
    I will be frank.

    I believe it is what pleases God; our trust in Him and belief in His Word (because it is best). He made humanity for a relationship with Him. Adam had free will to choose. He chose his own way. History is the witness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why is it basically a requirement?
    Because before you come to God you have to believe He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). You can't trust someone or have faith in someone who you do not believe exists. God resists the proud (James 4:6). They put their wisdom above His (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). He scoffs at those who think they know better, leaves them to their own darkened ways. They replace God as the highest authority and put themselves in His place. He makes their wisdom foolish.

    Those who humble themselves before God, by His grace He lifts up (in His time). Sometimes He allows a person to come to a low point in their life so that they reach out to Him because they have nothing left. When you have everything you need you tend to put God aside and pursue things that do not last.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    From what I have read in the Bible about God, the faith requirement seems pretty iffy. If the Christian God's desires match what is said in the Bible, it seems logical (to me at least) that there would be a way to know for sure you were fallowing the right path, given the gravity of that decision.
    Jesus is that path (John 14:6). Faith/belief in Him is what the Father calls for (Romans 3:28; Luke 18:14). The whole of the OT is a revelation of Him (Jesus) in types and shadows (Luke 24:44; Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5). The physical reality of the OT points to a greater spiritual reality revealed more fully in the NT - Jesus Christ, the expectant Messiah. What is applied strictly to God in the OT is also applied to the Lord Jesus Christ in the NT. What is shown man cannot do in the OT is done by Jesus Christ in the NT.

    So, what makes Christianity different from other religions? Other religions are all religions of works (works based), what we do to earn God's mercy/favor by our "righteousness."(Galatians 2:16) Christianity is what God has lovingly done for us (John 3:16-18). Man is required to live justly before God by meeting requirements of goodness. The problem is, how can man live a perfectly righteous life before a holy and pure God? The witness of the OT, history, and every religious belief is that he can't.

    The Son of God became a man to fulfill for us the righteous requirements of God. He meets that perfect standard of righteousness by the life He lives as a man. He also takes the punishment for sin that we deserve and pays it for us. Thus, He satisfies God's righteousness in reconciling us (Romans 4:5; Romans 5:18; Romans 10:4), restoring the close relationship that was lost by Adam (Colossians 1:22). He also pays our penalty to satisfy God's justice - a good God does what is just!

    Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ transforms us and translates us into God's kingdom, through adoption (Ephesians 1:5). God opens our hearts and minds to His grace and mercy (2 Corinthians 4:6). He gives us a new nature, a nature that is no longer hostile or indifferent to Him (Romans 8:5-10). He continually confirms to us that His Word is true in what it says (1 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 2:2-3).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have heard free will argued as the reason for a faith requirement, but if you believe in the Bible and resurrection etc, God has many, many times shown himself and/powers.
    Indeed, how can it be said you have free will to make a decision at all if you don't know for sure what the choices are? Especially a decision that involves eternity.
    Perhaps my definition of faith doesn't apply in this case for some reason?
    The witness of God is there for everyone (Romans 1:18-21). He shows His providence in sustaining the universe (Colossians 1:16-17) by what is made. He shows His grace and mercy by revealing Himself and what He is like by His Word and through His Spirit.

    I personally do not believe our wills are free but in bondage to all kinds of influences. We are governed by our sinful natures. We like to do what we like to do (that opposes God's good nature). We need God's grace to set us free from our bondages. We still have a volition (we choose), but we don't choose for God without hearing of His mercy, usually through His Word and Spirit in Christ, or by the witness of a Christian. It requires an act of God (John 3:3-5). The way, again, is Jesus Christ. We see our hopelessness in and of ourselves and see our need for a Savior. Are we willing to change? It requires repentance and the mercy of God. Bring it to God. He has done everything needed for our salvation/redemption! If you treat the Bible as the God of the universe speaking to you through Jesus and the two testaments, I think you open yourself to His message. The first time I ever read the Bible I knew I was on holy ground. God was speaking to me through the witness of Scripture! He was showing me who He is and what He requires, faith in Jesus.

    When you read the Bible pay attention to the audience of address and the time frame. Most people try to relate everything prophesied to themselves and their generation. That is not who the audience is addressing. It revolves around two covenants and God's judgment of the one (because of the faithlessness of most of OT Israel people to living in obedience to that covenant) to bring the other (better) covenant into existence.

    Why do some people believe, yet no matter how convincing the argument is, others will not? They just entrench themselves all the more against God. Hoping you hear His grace through the message!

    Peter

  5. #145
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Yes, they do have a different take on history, but all three religious beliefs utilize the OT. The OT Jews rejected their Messiah. The Jews of today, I believe I can show, can no longer meet the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant because God abolished it. They are NOT the same Jews the Bible speaks of who were under covenant with God.

    Islam, it seems, is a religion influenced by at least four different faiths - Judaism, aberrant Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and regional pagan tribes (some of whom worshiped the goddess of the half moon).

    Judaism does not recognize that the Torah (Law), Psalms and Prophets have been fulfilled.

    Christianity is the fulfillment.



    No, after.



    I will be frank.

    I believe it is what pleases God; our trust in Him and belief in His Word (because it is best). He made humanity for a relationship with Him. Adam had free will to choose. He chose his own way. History is the witness.



    Because before you come to God you have to believe He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). You can't trust someone or have faith in someone who you do not believe exists. God resists the proud (James 4:6). They put their wisdom above His (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). He scoffs at those who think they know better, leaves them to their own darkened ways. They replace God as the highest authority and put themselves in His place. He makes their wisdom foolish.

    Those who humble themselves before God, by His grace He lifts up (in His time). Sometimes He allows a person to come to a low point in their life so that they reach out to Him because they have nothing left. When you have everything you need you tend to put God aside and pursue things that do not last.



    Jesus is that path (John 14:6). Faith/belief in Him is what the Father calls for (Romans 3:28; Luke 18:14). The whole of the OT is a revelation of Him (Jesus) in types and shadows (Luke 24:44; Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5). The physical reality of the OT points to a greater spiritual reality revealed more fully in the NT - Jesus Christ, the expectant Messiah. What is applied strictly to God in the OT is also applied to the Lord Jesus Christ in the NT. What is shown man cannot do in the OT is done by Jesus Christ in the NT.

    So, what makes Christianity different from other religions? Other religions are all religions of works (works based), what we do to earn God's mercy/favor by our "righteousness."(Galatians 2:16) Christianity is what God has lovingly done for us (John 3:16-18). Man is required to live justly before God by meeting requirements of goodness. The problem is, how can man live a perfectly righteous life before a holy and pure God? The witness of the OT, history, and every religious belief is that he can't.

    The Son of God became a man to fulfill for us the righteous requirements of God. He meets that perfect standard of righteousness by the life He lives as a man. He also takes the punishment for sin that we deserve and pays it for us. Thus, He satisfies God's righteousness in reconciling us (Romans 4:5; Romans 5:18; Romans 10:4), restoring the close relationship that was lost by Adam (Colossians 1:22). He also pays our penalty to satisfy God's justice - a good God does what is just!

    Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ transforms us and translates us into God's kingdom, through adoption (Ephesians 1:5). God opens our hearts and minds to His grace and mercy (2 Corinthians 4:6). He gives us a new nature, a nature that is no longer hostile or indifferent to Him (Romans 8:5-10). He continually confirms to us that His Word is true in what it says (1 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 2:2-3).



    The witness of God is there for everyone (Romans 1:18-21). He shows His providence in sustaining the universe (Colossians 1:16-17) by what is made. He shows His grace and mercy by revealing Himself and what He is like by His Word and through His Spirit.

    I personally do not believe our wills are free but in bondage to all kinds of influences. We are governed by our sinful natures. We like to do what we like to do (that opposes God's good nature). We need God's grace to set us free from our bondages. We still have a volition (we choose), but we don't choose for God without hearing of His mercy, usually through His Word and Spirit in Christ, or by the witness of a Christian. It requires an act of God (John 3:3-5). The way, again, is Jesus Christ. We see our hopelessness in and of ourselves and see our need for a Savior. Are we willing to change? It requires repentance and the mercy of God. Bring it to God. He has done everything needed for our salvation/redemption! If you treat the Bible as the God of the universe speaking to you through Jesus and the two testaments, I think you open yourself to His message. The first time I ever read the Bible I knew I was on holy ground. God was speaking to me through the witness of Scripture! He was showing me who He is and what He requires, faith in Jesus.

    When you read the Bible pay attention to the audience of address and the time frame. Most people try to relate everything prophesied to themselves and their generation. That is not who the audience is addressing. It revolves around two covenants and God's judgment of the one (because of the faithlessness of most of OT Israel people to living in obedience to that covenant) to bring the other (better) covenant into existence.

    Why do some people believe, yet no matter how convincing the argument is, others will not? They just entrench themselves all the more against God. Hoping you hear His grace through the message!

    Peter

    I don't think we are at the same place in this conversation.

    Your eloquent answers sound a bit like a sermon and less like what PGA2 thinks in answer to my questions.
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 20th, 2017 at 06:10 PM.

  6. #146
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't think we are at the same place in this conversation.

    Your eloquent answers sound a bit like a sermon and less like what PGA2 thinks in answer to my questions.
    You asked what made Christianity superior. Islam is a smorgasbord of different beliefs merged together that are contradictory to the revelation of the OT and NT. Christianity is the prophetic fulfillment of the OT in their Messiah. The Mosaic Covenant ceases to exist in A.D. 70. because God replaces it with a better covenant, an eternal covenant that includes every tribe and tongue and nation.

    You asked me specific questions on faith. What is the value of faith? Faith is only as good as the object it places its belief in. If that object is not true to what is true then faith does not serve you well. Why is it a basic requirement? Because if you are going to place your faith in God you must believe He exists, He is true, and He rewards you for your trust.

    You asked specific questions about the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    From what I have read in the Bible about God, the faith requirement seems pretty iffy. If the Christian God's desires match what is said in the Bible, it seems logical (to me at least) that there would be a way to know for sure you were fallowing the right path, given the gravity of that decision.
    I answered your concern by laying out why it is most reasonable to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I have heard free will argued as the reason for a faith requirement, but if you believe in the Bible and resurrection etc, God has many, many times shown himself and/powers.
    Indeed, how can it be said you have free will to make a decision at all if you don't know for sure what the choices are? Especially a decision that involves eternity.
    Perhaps my definition of faith doesn't apply in this case for some reason?
    I explained my position.

    It is as simple as that. I'm not sure I understand what you are after with your questions.

    Peter

  7. #147
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You asked what made Christianity superior. Islam is a smorgasbord of different beliefs merged together that are contradictory to the revelation of the OT and NT. Christianity is the prophetic fulfillment of the OT in their Messiah. The Mosaic Covenant ceases to exist in A.D. 70. because God replaces it with a better covenant, an eternal covenant that includes every tribe and tongue and nation.

    You asked me specific questions on faith. What is the value of faith? Faith is only as good as the object it places its belief in. If that object is not true to what is true then faith does not serve you well. Why is it a basic requirement? Because if you are going to place your faith in God you must believe He exists, He is true, and He rewards you for your trust.

    You asked specific questions about the Bible.



    I answered your concern by laying out why it is most reasonable to believe.



    I explained my position.

    It is as simple as that. I'm not sure I understand what you are after with your questions.

    Peter
    Yes, this is more what I had in mind in a conversation

    What I am after is simple. I know some of what I "know", is false (yet, I don't know what parts). I believe "no man is so lowly, that I can not learn from him". I seek out where I am wrong, so I can be more right

    I would love to discuss this in more depth with you, but I feel we are way too far outside the scope of the Op in our current conversation. Perhaps we can explore this more in a different thread?

  8. #148
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yes, this is more what I had in mind in a conversation

    What I am after is simple. I know some of what I "know", is false (yet, I don't know what parts). I believe "no man is so lowly, that I can not learn from him". I seek out where I am wrong, so I can be more right

    I would love to discuss this in more depth with you, but I feel we are way too far outside the scope of the Op in our current conversation. Perhaps we can explore this more in a different thread?
    I'm game, but since you know more of what you want to question I leave the formation of a new thread up to you.
    I can lay down proofs of why it is most reasonable to believe the Bible for what it claims to be thousands of times, God word (and revelation), but you may want to direct the conversation somewhere else, so feel free.

    Peter

  9. #149
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, but it would be superior to it in the same way that KNOWING that the Earth is round is superior to have an opinion on the shape of the earth.
    Again, since it would not preclude the fact that there is a human source of morality, then it would just be another source forwarding its own morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I've looked through your links and as far I can tell, you are not forwarding proof that morality comes from evolution but just presenting certain people arguing that this is the case and none of the theories forwarded have been widely accepted.
    It's a field which is still fairly unknown to laypeople, I agree. However, when you have names like Dawkins and Dennett talking about how our morality is evolved, there is little room for misinterpretation. In any case, the topic of the evolution of morality is indeed one which has been widely researched and that research has been peer-reviewed and cited by the scientific community. (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=morality+evolution)

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    For example, with what you pasted from the wikipedia article, you omitted this: "Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial."
    We should look at the context: "Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial. The traditional view of social scientists has been that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative"
    The point about sociobiological explanations being controversial isn't to say that morality might not have evolved together with humans, but simply that the traditional view has been that it's a culturally relative construct and the emerging field of sociobiology offers other explanations of the evolution of morality which are still controversial. Remember that the evolution is an observed fact - it's the explanations which are the contentious aspect of the science.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that seems to be the same for all of your support - no one has proven that this is the case but just that some people think that it is so.
    Again, what is observed are the facts - it's the explanations themselves which are under debate. What is observed is that human morality comes from humans. How this happened is the explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Also, I don't think a proving that there is a biological source of morality show that there is no objective morality. If one believes that God exists (typically defined as the creator of the universe and the primary source of morality) then all that is is what God wants it to be so even a biological explanation of morality can stem from this objective source. In other words, if objective morality exists in that fashion, the reason that biological morality exists is because God designed us, including every species of life, to be moral in that fashion. Or to put it another way, biological morality stems from objective morality.
    And the classic God of the Gaps rears its ugly head. Previously it was simply "if a God exists, then morality is objective". Now that the concept of morality being only objective or subjective has been challenged, you have to start adding all sorts of qualifiers to explain why the seemingly non-mutually-exclusive concepts are all ultimately objective morality. Unfortunately, we do science by creating models which best fit the observed facts. And while it's certainly possible that what you offer is the correct explanation, there are no observed facts which support it over the current models. The model where you are nothing but a brain in a vat and this is all just your imagination is just as viable a model as what you're proposing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not getting there that way. I'm getting there from the very definition of the word "objective".
    You misunderstood. The issue is not how you get to "objective", it's how you get to "objective fact", "fact" being the issue here.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If it's an objective fact that, say, murder is immoral, then it's a fact that it is.
    "If it's a fact then it's a fact." Just another pointless tautology. You have not supported how an deity's moral pronouncement could be itself a fact. Again, all we would have is the fact that a deity made a moral pronouncement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But this is really just semantics. One can subjectively believe that the Earth is flat and that would qualify as a "subjective" belief about the shape of the Earth coming from a person. That doesn't change the fact that it's objectively true that the Earth is round. So what the shape of the Earth is is both objective and subjective for there is nothing preventing someone from having a subjective opinion on something which is factually true or untrue.
    Again, missing the point. Since we have no demonstrations that morals can even be facts in the same way as something like the shape of the Earth, the comparison between morality and the shape of the Earth is nonsensical.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    We are referring to human morality here. So if there is an objective source that has created our morality but we don't recognize it as such and instead make up our own answers, our answers are inferior to the correct answers. It's like making up our own answers about the shape of the Earth compared to the objective truth about the shape of the Earth. Yes, both the human-invented answer and the real answer exists, but obviously the real answer is the superior answer for it is objectively correct and there is no room for doubt, unlike the human-created answers.
    Again, you're going from "an objective source making pronouncements" to "those pronouncements are facts". This has not been supported.

  10. #150
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, since it would not preclude the fact that there is a human source of morality, then it would just be another source forwarding its own morality.
    But it would be a superior one in the same way that facts are superior to opinion.

    I think you are misunderstanding or ignoring what it means if morality is objective. That means that it's a fact that, say, murder is immoral. The reason that it's factual is because some being, like God, has made it so does not change that.

    In that situation, a person is still free to form his own opinion on whether murder is immoral or not but all they can really do is agree or disagree with what's factually correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, what is observed are the facts - it's the explanations themselves which are under debate. What is observed is that human morality comes from humans. How this happened is the explanation.
    And one cannot say that the explanation could not be "Because God wanted it that way". And I'm not say that that is the explanation. Again, I argue as an agnostic. But if one forwards the hypothesis that evolution happens as it does because God has designed the system to work that way and therefore whatever happens, including humans having morality, is God's will, then God is the ultimate source of human morality.

    Again, I'm not saying that that is the correct answer - only that it is a possible answer.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And the classic God of the Gaps rears its ugly head. Previously it was simply "if a God exists, then morality is objective". Now that the concept of morality being only objective or subjective has been challenged, you have to start adding all sorts of qualifiers to explain why the seemingly non-mutually-exclusive concepts are all ultimately objective morality. Unfortunately, we do science by creating models which best fit the observed facts. And while it's certainly possible that what you offer is the correct explanation, there are no observed facts which support it over the current models. The model where you are nothing but a brain in a vat and this is all just your imagination is just as viable a model as what you're proposing.
    Actually, I'm unaware of any accepted scientific model that says that the universe was not created by an intelligence (which would be a likely source of human morality if it existed). As far as I know, WHY the universe exists (accident or intent) is currently unanswerable by today's scientific knowledge.

    So likewise the ultimate root of morality is likewise unknown. If you can provide scientific evidence that the universe was not created by an intelligence (and lack of evidence that it was is not valid evidence that it wasn't), then we can consider dismissing the possibility that there is an external intelligence behind all of creation and therefore behind morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You misunderstood. The issue is not how you get to "objective", it's how you get to "objective fact", "fact" being the issue here.
    I'm pretty sure that the two words basically mean the same thing. All facts are objective and everything that is objectively true is fact.

    If it's objectively true that murder is immoral, then it's a fact that murder is immoral.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "If it's a fact then it's a fact." Just another pointless tautology. You have not supported how an deity's moral pronouncement could be itself a fact. Again, all we would have is the fact that a deity made a moral pronouncement.
    I am supporting it by using the correct definition of the word. "Objective" means "fact". So "objective morality" means "factual morality". So IF (emphasis "if") objective morality exists then it's a fact that certain moral positions are objectively (factually) correct.

    You obviously don't have to agree that such a thing even exists, but you do have to accept the concept if you are going to debate whether it exists or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, missing the point. Since we have no demonstrations that morals can even be facts in the same way as something like the shape of the Earth, the comparison between morality and the shape of the Earth is nonsensical.

    Again, you're going from "an objective source making pronouncements" to "those pronouncements are facts". This has not been supported.
    It's the supported by the very definition of the words. Objective = Facts. That's how we get from "objective morality" to "it's a fact that X is immoral".

    It's the same way that I support that the creature that has whiskers and goes "meow" is a housecoat - that creature fits the definition of the word that we apply to it.

    ---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] Okay, fine, but why would a Christian defend agnosticism?
    Who said I was a Christian?

    To be clear, while I argue as an agnostic, what my actual beliefs are is completely hidden and you can guess all you want but I'm not going to confirm nor deny that I hold any particular belief. The primary reason is that my actual beliefs are irrelevant to my arguments. Trying to attack my arguments based on my beliefs is to engage in an Ad Hom Fallacy which is a logical fallacy (and to be clear, pointing this out to you is not to accuse you of doing that - someone else misinterpreted this point) and therefore does not contribute to the debate and therefore this issue is not worthy of discussion. The strengths and weaknesses of my arguments are present in the arguments themselves and my own personal characteristics are irrelevant to that.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I don't think agnosticism is a logical response. The logical answer is to find what can and does make sense, what is logical. If the universe is without ultimate meaning, then there is no point in looking for it. If the universe is without ultimate meaning, then there is no logic to it. Most worldviews seem to come at it as if there are sense and logic to be found. They look for sense and provide meaning that would not ultimately be there if their position were correct. If their position were true, there would be ultimate meaninglessness, no reason for logic.
    But then the universe does not need to have ultimate meaning in order for existence to be logical. When it comes to "big answers", one does not pick a side and then try to find evidence to support it. One starts with the evidence and then sees where the evidence leads one.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Find the correct answer that has sufficient evidence! There is only one!
    I haven't see strong evidence for any particular answer and no one has been able to provide enough evidence to sway me either way.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not true. People have come to faith in believing the evidence of the resurrection, the Word of God, the prophetic evidence, the testimony of Jesus throughout the Bible and a host of other evidence. These reasons are convincing proof of God.
    But then people have come to faith believing in what Islam and other non-Christian religions have to offer. You can certainly say that all of these other religions are false and so on but as far as I can tell, their believers are just as devout as Christian believes so the fact that OTHER people have been persuaded to believe because of THEIR religion is not evidence that any particular one of them is right.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    With proof, no matter how reasonable it is, some will not believe.
    I can't say that I've ever rejected reasonable proof because I've never seen any proof.

    So let's see some actual proof. All I've seen from you are claims.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I can provide evidence/proof that is logical, and consistent. No matter how consistent, or logical, or reasonable the proof/evidence does not bring someone to faith without the will to trust the evidence and believe God.
    Then do so. Let's see some evidence or proof. And I don't mean claims that proof exists somewhere. Can you provide proof on this website?




    ---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And this is where we disagree. You haven't supported fully why this is so. You stated that any entity that had sufficient power to create life and a universe would be the objective moral source for that universe. I realize theists believe this entity would be all good and just, but why is this necessarily so? Is there some reason that an entity with "vast "powers" is required to be "all good" that I am unaware of?
    If the "devil" (as commonly defined by Christians) for instance, had this power, he/she would be the objective moral source for that universe. A less than desirable situation one would think.
    You can opine on the desirability of that but if the devil were the determiner of objective morality, then that would be objective morality. And if the devil determined what was objective good then that is what would be objectively good.

    You might not like that scenario but I don't see what there is to disagree with about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Also unrelated to the Op (but since IMHO, most of the responses thus far have been as well), I see no reason to have to justify you arguing as agnostic (no matter your personal beliefs). This is a debate site, not life. We come here (hopefully) to learn.
    Try arguing against what you believe for a change.
    If I'm not actually an agnostic, then I AM arguing against what I believe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It may open your eyes to unlearned truths, as in, who among us knows all? If you don't know "all", then you are wrong about some things. Seek out the things you are wrong about. Of course share the things you are right about with others (knowing you are wrong sometimes, and keep an open mind).
    Arguing as an agnostic is very much a way to do that. An agnostic does not know the answers and therefore invites people to give him answers and he can analyze those answers to see if they make sense.

    But even more to the point, I don't see much point in arguing for a position that one cannot actually support and I don't think theists or atheists can support their position. But then maybe I'm wrong and someone will provide evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Personally, I can see the argument for a "higher power" of some sort, but the Christian, Muslim, Jewish version is a high, bar that has been set so high, I doubt it can be reached. Generally you have to suspend logic for a time (eg: one supreme God of the universe that is made up of "three distinct individuals" that are, separate and one all at the same time. And we call this "monotheism". How is this different than a married bachelor or square circle?).
    Three separate cups of water from the ocean are both three separate cups of water and the ocean at the same time.


    (Let the spankings begin, as I am expecting hate mail for this post/position [/QUOTE]

  11. #151
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think you are misunderstanding or ignoring what it means if morality is objective.
    Again, the conclusion being only "morality is objective or subjective" has not been supported, since even if an objective source of morality existed, it still wouldn't preclude other sources of morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That means that it's a fact that, say, murder is immoral. The reason that it's factual is because some being, like God, has made it so does not change that.
    Again, how do you get from "it's a fact that god said A is immoral to "it's a fact that A is immoral"? All you have is the pronouncement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In that situation, a person is still free to form his own opinion on whether murder is immoral or not but all they can really do is agree or disagree with what's factually correct.
    No, they can agree or disagree with god's pronouncement. You haven't supported that a moral pronouncement from an objective source is anything more than just that, a moral pronouncement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And one cannot say that the explanation could not be "Because God wanted it that way". And I'm not say that that is the explanation. Again, I argue as an agnostic. But if one forwards the hypothesis that evolution happens as it does because God has designed the system to work that way and therefore whatever happens, including humans having morality, is God's will, then God is the ultimate source of human morality.
    But even with the GapGod qualifiers, it would still be possible for humans to create their own morality, so you still haven't supported that morality is only objective or subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, I'm unaware of any accepted scientific model that says that the universe was not created by an intelligence (which would be a likely source of human morality if it existed). As far as I know, WHY the universe exists (accident or intent) is currently unanswerable by today's scientific knowledge.
    The models which are currently in serious use within the scientific community for the origins of the universe do not include any creative intelligence or intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So likewise the ultimate root of morality is likewise unknown.
    Again, you have not supported that it must have an ultimate root. There could be multiple different and different types of sources. So far, one of the sources we have observed is humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm pretty sure that the two words basically mean the same thing. All facts are objective and everything that is objectively true is fact. If it's objectively true that murder is immoral, then it's a fact that murder is immoral.
    Again, you are missing the point. How do we get to "murder is immoral" being a fact, and not just a moral pronouncement from an objective source?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am supporting it by using the correct definition of the word. "Objective" means "fact". So "objective morality" means "factual morality". So IF (emphasis "if") objective morality exists then it's a fact that certain moral positions are objectively (factually) correct.
    Again, objective morality is morality which comes from an objective source. So it's not "if objective morality exists", but "if an objective source for morality exists".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You obviously don't have to agree that such a thing even exists, but you do have to understand the concept if you are going to debate whether it exists or not. If you won't even acknowledge the concept, then you can't debate whether it exists or not.
    It's not that I'm not acknowledging the concept, it's that I'm questioning whether it's a rational concept, and you have not supported that it is. How do you get from "objective source A says B is wrong" to "it's a fact that B is wrong"? Otherwise, they're just moral pronouncements, and not facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's the supported by the very definition of the words. Objective = Facts. That's how we get from "objective morality" to "it's a fact that X is immoral".
    Again, you're just making a claim that "it would be a fact that X is immoral", when the only fact we would have is that "objective being said X is immoral".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's the same way that I support that the creature that has whiskers and goes "meow" is a housecoat - that creature fits the definition of the word that we apply to it.
    Your example only has value since it's a fact which can be objectively observed and demonstrated. Please explain how "X is immoral" could be objectively observed and demonstrated.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] Okay, fine, but why would a Christian defend agnosticism? You are not doing the truth justice if you believe God's word is true and yet set up arguments against it. I want others to know the truth that will set them free (John 8:32)!
    Don't say I didn't warn you, Peter.

  12. #152
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You can opine on the desirability of that but if the devil were the determiner of objective morality, then that would be objective morality. And if the devil determined what was objective good then that is what would be objectively good.

    You might not like that scenario but I don't see what there is to disagree with about it.
    [/QUOTE]



    Ummm, the point is, you said it would be "superior" if true! I am saying, if the Devil were to make his own universe, why would his "objective morals" necessarily be "superior" to a subjective moral system (since a subjective system could, mirror an objective source or not).

    ---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm game, but since you know more of what you want to question I leave the formation of a new thread up to you.
    Peter
    Well, since the Op is responding to our conversation, he apparently doesn't think we are too far off the mark, so we can continue here if you like?

    Do you believe the Bible is literally true or does it contain metaphors?
    You said you have studied other religions, but only after you became Christian?

    I still have concerns about faith being necessary.

    As in my discussion with Mican, if a being made our universe, that doesn't make him good. Requiring faith would be a good way to hide this fact.

    ---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You asked me specific questions on faith. What is the value of faith? Faith is only as good as the object it places its belief in. If that object is not true to what is true then faith does not serve you well. Why is it a basic requirement? Because if you are going to place your faith in God you must believe He exists, He is true, and He rewards you for your trust.
    We are great here right up until you say "you must believe he exists) etc.

    This does not answer my question even remotely.

    Why would the Christian god require faith that he exists??? He is explicit in the Bible in his desires. If he wants people to fallow, why is knowing for sure he lives a problem?
    Yes, you probably should have faith he exists if you are going to fallow the Bible, but what possible reason could there be that an all knowing/powerful etc being would not let it be known, for sure, that he/she even existed for absolute positive sure?

    Why would such a being require this unknown about it's own existence?
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 24th, 2017 at 05:26 PM.

  13. #153
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    You made the same point numerous times so my few responses should address every point you made.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the conclusion being only "morality is objective or subjective" has not been supported, since even if an objective source of morality existed, it still wouldn't preclude other sources of morality.
    And I'm not saying that both can't exist. But I am saying that if objective morality exists, it is superior to subjective morality in the same way that factual knowledge regarding the shape of the Earth is superior to opinions on the shape of the earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, how do you get from "it's a fact that god said A is immoral to "it's a fact that A is immoral"? All you have is the pronouncement.
    It's not an issue of what God says. It would be an issue of what God created. If God created everything in the universe, then God created morality. In other words, the very author of morality has determined that, for example, that murder is immoral. While one can disagree with that fact, it would be like a character in a novel disagree with the author of the novel about the facts of the story that the author wrote. They can disagree but they obviously would be wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The models which are currently in serious use within the scientific community for the origins of the universe do not include any creative intelligence or intent.
    Nor do they include a rejection of creative intelligence or intent. They just don't address the issue either way.



    ---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ummm, the point is, you said it would be "superior" if true! I am saying, if the Devil were to make his own universe, why would his "objective morals" necessarily be "superior" to a subjective moral system (since a subjective system could, mirror an objective source or not).
    Because in that universe, the Devil's system is correct and any who hold a different system could either agree with his system or oppose it and be incorrect.

    When it comes to what is objectively true, the only two options are to agree with what's true or disagree with what's true and therefore be wrong.
    Last edited by mican333; July 25th, 2017 at 11:43 AM.

  14. #154
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I'm not saying that both can't exist. But I am saying that if objective morality exists, it is superior to subjective morality in the same way that factual knowledge regarding the shape of the Earth is superior to opinions on the shape of the earth.

    It's not an issue of what God says. It would be an issue of what God created. If God created everything in the universe, then God created morality. In other words, the very author of morality has determined that, for example, that murder is immoral. While one can disagree with that fact, it would be like a character in a novel disagree with the author of the novel about the facts of the story that the author wrote. They can disagree but they obviously would be wrong.
    The first issue is that you started by defining objective morality as pronouncements which are forwarded by an objective source, namely god. Now you're saying that the god created morality itself. Not only does this not align with the OP's definition, it is also simply a different way of expressing your assertion that the morals are or would be facts, which has not been supported. It's basically just another GapGod qualifier.

    Further, since you have once again clarified that both can exist, we now also have the issue that you're claiming that god would have created morality. So he ultimately would have also created the morality coming from the human source, which would make the human morality also ultimately objective?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Nor do they include a rejection of creative intelligence or intent. They just don't address the issue either way.
    Because that's not necessary, nor is it how science is done. The null hypothesis is what must be disproved by proponents of models which include creative intelligence or intent.

  15. #155
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The first issue is that you started by defining objective morality as pronouncements which are forwarded by an objective source, namely god. Now you're saying that the god created morality itself. Not only does this not align with the OP's definition, it is also simply a different way of expressing your assertion that the morals are or would be facts, which has not been supported. It's basically just another GapGod qualifier.
    First off, it does align with the OP's definition. Here it is:

    "There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow." Creating morals definitely fits within the definition of "forwarding" them. The part that actually mentioned God was preceded by "for example" which means that that is ONE way that objective morality could exist. And either way, despite what I wrote, God creating morals would definitely fit the definition of "objective morality" going by the definitions of those words.

    And I have supported that objective morality could exist. IF God exists and created morality (both of which are technically possible) then objective morality exists. There would be an objective moral law in the same that if God exists and created the physical laws of the universe, there are objective physical laws (such as gravity).

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Further, since you have once again clarified that both can exist, we now also have the issue that you're claiming that god would have created morality. So he ultimately would have also created the morality coming from the human source, which would make the human morality also ultimately objective?
    I don't think so. If God forwards that murder is immoral and a human holds a differing moral viewpoint, then his moral viewpoint does not align with objective morality and therefore would be subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Because that's not necessary, nor is it how science is done. The null hypothesis is what must be disproved by proponents of models which include creative intelligence or intent.
    And likewise the null hypothesis is what must be disproved by proponents of models which exclude creative intelligence or intent (as in hold that they had nothing to do with the creation of the universe).

    As far as I know, neither side (theist or atheist) have provided a valid model showing that the universe was or was not created by an intelligence. There are models that don't address the issue at all which are the models I believe you were referring to in your last post.

  16. #156
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because in that universe, the Devil's system is correct and any who hold a different system could either agree with his system or oppose it and be incorrect.
    When it comes to what is objectively true, the only two options are to agree with what's true or disagree with what's true and therefore be wrong.
    So back to "might makes right", which I am not buying.

    But, even if I granted that, how would that necessarily make it superior to every possible subjective moral system?
    You keep telling me it is so, but your only support is "something was powerful enough to create a universe, and that something has morals" so they are superior.............
    (until this last post, where you now say "correct" instead of "superior").

    Or, what are you using for a definition of "superior" or I am not understanding any better than Future is.

  17. #157
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow." Creating morals definitely fits within the definition of "forwarding" them. The part that actually mentioned God was preceded by "for example" which means that that is ONE way that objective morality could exist.
    No, there is quite a difference between forwarding a pronouncement and creating something in the sense that you have used it. And in the example part you were providing an example of a moral forwarded by god which humans would be correct if they were to follow, so I don't buy your claim now that you were providing an example of one way that objective morality could exist. Sorry, but it just doesn't gel at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And either way, despite what I wrote, God creating morals would definitely fit the definition of "objective morality" going by the definitions of those words.
    No, because the definition had god forwarding moral pronouncements, not creating morality in the same sense that the universe would be created by god. Please explain how objective morals would be a thing which was created.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There would be an objective moral law in the same that if God exists and created the physical laws of the universe, there are objective physical laws (such as gravity).
    This has not been supported. On what basis do you equate the moral laws forwarded by an objective source with the physical laws established by the scientific method? You do realize that the physical laws aren't really things which were created, but expressions of how our universe has been observed to function, don't you? You are conflating two wildly different concepts in a way that only appears to suit your argument on the most superficial and basic literal level. Again, lease explain how "X is immoral" could be objectively observed and demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't think so. If God forwards that murder is immoral and a human holds a differing moral viewpoint, then his moral viewpoint does not align with objective morality and therefore would be subjective.
    So then we'd have the situation where humans have established their own moral system absent any indication that there's another source (which is currently the case), and then there also turns out to be an objective source forwarding its own morality in some unknown way. So in that situation morality itself as a whole is not objective or subjective, but there would simply be human sources of morality and also an objective source.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And likewise the null hypothesis is what must be disproved by proponents of models which exclude creative intelligence or intent (as in hold that they had nothing to do with the creation of the universe).
    Again, this is a misrepresentation of how scientific models and the null hypothesis work. You'll not find any models which explicitly state that they "hold that intelligence or intent had nothing to do with the creation of the universe". The null hypothesis removes any requirement for that. Second, your wording is completely incorrect - it's not "the creation of the universe", since this already implies that the universe was created.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as I know, neither side (theist or atheist) have provided a valid model showing that the universe was or was not created by an intelligence.
    They haven't. Again, that's because this position is encompassed by the null hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There are models that don't address the issue at all which are the models I believe you were referring to in your last post.
    Again, you are misrepresenting how the scientific method works with models. Nobody sets out to create a model which addresses the issue you are referring to - at least nobody seriously considering a career in science. Models are created to fit the data, and the best models are those which best fit the data. The point about there not being any models which include creative intelligence or intent merely highlights the fact that there is no data for such a model.

  18. #158
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, there is quite a difference between forwarding a pronouncement and creating something in the sense that you have used it. And in the example part you were providing an example of a moral forwarded by god which humans would be correct if they were to follow, so I don't buy your claim now that you were providing an example of one way that objective morality could exist. Sorry, but it just doesn't gel at all.
    Right. But ONE example does not preclude all other examples. So I provided THAT example and now I've provided ANOTHER example which is regarding God creating morality. If you want to reject my first example, you may. But you can't ignore my other example because you rejected the first one.

    So I have provided a coherent example of objective morality and it falls in line with a very common scenario which a significant number of people (hundreds of millions at least) believe to be true. That doesn't mean that their beliefs are true but they are coherent and possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This has not been supported. On what basis do you equate the moral laws forwarded by an objective source with the physical laws established by the scientific method? You do realize that the physical laws aren't really things which were created, but expressions of how our universe has been observed to function, don't you?
    I don't. I'm not referring to laws established by the scientific method. I'm referring to the physical properties of the universe. A ball falls to the ground because of gravity and gravity existed prior to humans using the scientific method to create the law of gravity.

    So if morality is objective, then it's as much a fact that murder is immoral as it is that a ball will fall to the ground if there's gravity present. And in both cases, it is because God created the universe that way.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So then we'd have the situation where humans have established their own moral system absent any indication that there's another source (which is currently the case), and then there also turns out to be an objective source forwarding its own morality in some unknown way.
    That's not necessarily so. Many, probably most, people would argue that we do have an indication of an objective moral source that can be accessed via religion (most people are religious). I would agree that one can reasonably claim that these people's beliefs are not provably true but that doesn't mean that they are all incorrect.

    Or one could argue that the reason that most people have general agreement on many moral issues, like murder, is because we innately agree with certain objective moral positions even if we don't intellectually acknowledge the source. Again, that's not provably true but it's not provably false either.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, this is a misrepresentation of how scientific models and the null hypothesis work. You'll not find any models which explicitly state that they "hold that intelligence or intent had nothing to do with the creation of the universe".
    And you won't find any models that explicitly state that they "hold that intelligence or intent made the universe". My point is that both claims that the the universe was made by an intelligence or was not made by an intelligence are without support and therefore equally supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Second, your wording is completely incorrect - it's not "the creation of the universe", since this already implies that the universe was created.
    Semantics. Let me say that when I say "created", I mean "came to be" and am not implying that a being made the universe when I use that word.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, you are misrepresenting how the scientific method works with models. Nobody sets out to create a model which addresses the issue you are referring to - at least nobody seriously considering a career in science. Models are created to fit the data, and the best models are those which best fit the data. The point about there not being any models which include creative intelligence or intent merely highlights the fact that there is no data for such a model.
    Right. There is NO evidence that the universe was made by an intelligence and there is NO evidence that the universe was not made by an intelligence. We don't have the data to answer this question and therefore the question has no answer.

    You seem to be conflating ignoring the issue of whether God exists with evidence that God does not exist.

    ---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So back to "might makes right", which I am not buying.
    It's not might makes right. It's God makes reality. You can say that don't like realty but it doesn't change it from being reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But, even if I granted that, how would that necessarily make it superior to every possible subjective moral system?
    By being correct. I mean you agree that the statement "the Earth is round" is superior to the statement "the Earth is flat" because it's correct while the other is not, right? The same thing applies if a moral position is objectively correct. You can say that you don't agree that the Earth should be round but that doesn't really mean much beyond what you think.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You keep telling me it is so, but your only support is "something was powerful enough to create a universe, and that something has morals" so they are superior.............
    (until this last post, where you now say "correct" instead of "superior").

    Or, what are you using for a definition of "superior" or I am not understanding any better than Future is.
    Correctness. Again, it's the same principle regarding the shape of the Earth.
    Last edited by mican333; July 26th, 2017 at 11:35 AM.

  19. #159
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I have supported that objective morality could exist.
    Then it depends on how you define it. Are you defining objective morality as moral pronouncements forwarded by an objective source, or is it something else? Further, if you're now saying that objective morality is not actually forwarded by any objective source, but that it exists because it's just created in some nebulous way, how is anyone supposed to access it in order to garner the supposed advantage you claim it would guarantee?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if morality is objective, then it's as much a fact that murder is immoral as it is that a ball will fall to the ground if there's gravity present. And in both cases, it is because God created the universe that way.
    Again, you're conflating two wildly different concepts. One is an actual observed physical property of reality, and the other is precisely not that. What is it? You can't just keep repeating that "it would be a fact just like gravity is a fact" without explaining precisely what you mean and supporting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In other words, there would be two types of morality - objective and subjective.
    So if there are multiple types, on what basis are you determining that one must be correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And you won't find any models that explicitly state that they "hold that intelligence or intent made the universe". My point is that both claims that the the universe was made by an intelligence or was not made by an intelligence are without support and therefore equally supported.
    Your point is yet another misrepresentation of the null hypothesis. A rejection of the proposition that the universe was made by an intelligence is encompassed within the null hypothesis, which is the default position absent any data for the rejected position. The original point about the scientific method and models was in response to your addition of GapGod qualifiers, and while it can be fun to try and imagine all sorts of ways to explain how something could be possible, it's pointless until there's any data.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Correctness. Again, it's the same principle regarding the shape of the Earth.
    Just claiming it's the same principle doesn't make it so. You need to support that moral pronouncements are the same as the observed physical properties of reality.

  20. #160
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not might makes right. It's God makes reality. You can say that don't like realty but it doesn't change it from being reality.


    By being correct. I mean you agree that the statement "the Earth is round" is superior to the statement "the Earth is flat" because it's correct while the other is not, right? The same thing applies if a moral position is objectively correct. You can say that you don't agree that the Earth should be round but that doesn't really mean much beyond what you think.


    Correctness. Again, it's the same principle regarding the shape of the Earth.

    Well, that is EXACTLY what you are saying here!! It might be "reality", but again, you haven't supported at all, that it would be necessarily "superior" in any way.
    Any entity with sufficient power to create a universe and moral creatures, by your Op, can do with them what he will and be completely "moral" the whole time. How this possibility is automatically "superior" to any and all possible subjective moral systems you have not come close to explaining!! The "earth is round" isn't remotely anything like "God can define morals any way he wants, and they will still be "objective morals""....

    You appear to want to make it so by defining "objective morals" to fit your conclusion.

 

 
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 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
  •