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 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 300
  1. #161
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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?
    It is easier! (^8

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Do you believe the Bible is literally true or does it contain metaphors?
    It contains both figurative and literal language, historical narrative, poetry, prose, laws and rules, metaphors, symbolism, irony and sarcasm, types and antitypes as well as apocalyptic language. The context determines the type of language. I do not believe everything is literal. A good portion contains figurative language. The Bible is also its own interpreter. God has given us everything we need to correctly interpret His word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You said you have studied other religions, but only after you became Christian?
    Some and to some extent, throughout my Christian life (which exceeds over half my total life - 37 years) - Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, the Baha'i faith, Judaism, J.W's, Mormonism, Islam, paganism and witchcraft, Gnostics, agnostics and atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    We are great here right up until you say "you must believe he exists) etc.
    Regarding God's goodness:

    The Fall of humanity (in Adam) has definitely changed the goodness variable in that man in his volition chooses evil and calls it good. God placed restriction on humans and the natural world after the Fall - Genesis 3:14-19; 22-24.

    In making a value judgment I have indirectly contended with Mican that an 1) objective, 2) ultimate, 3) absolute, 4) unchanging, 5) true, 6) eternal standard or measure is necessary to know goodness. Without such a standard why is your opinion any BETTER than mine - who determines BETTER? Everything becomes relative. Without a fixed standard that is good how do you get BETTER - what do you compare it to?

    Is honor good? How about truth, justice, patience, loving kindness, compassion and mercy? If you think these are good qualities then the biblical God is said to have these qualities. (These are qualities of God's nature as revealed in the Bible) If you can't say they are good then you can't object to someone who lies to you, or is unkind with you, or treats you with indifference and contempt. Inherently, I think you would agree that those first set of qualities are "good" qualities.

    I'll let you decide.

    Requiring Faith:

    Why would you want to believe in Someone who did not exist? It requires faith based on the biblical revelation since the biblical revelation is that God is Spirit and therefore not a physical Being.

    Belief can be a leap of faith but I believe I can demonstrate that the God revealed in the Bible has given sufficient, reasonable, logical evidence that He is God.

    It takes faith to sit in a chair. You must believe it will support your weight. We have faith in a lot of things. Your belief system, whatever it is requires faith. There are some core intangibles that require faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This does not answer my question even remotely.

    [1] Why would the Christian god require faith that he exists??? He is explicit in the Bible in his desires. [2] If he wants people to fallow, why is knowing for sure he lives a problem?
    [3] 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?
    [1] Why would you believe/put faith in a god that does not exist? You must believe He exists to put faith in Him.

    [2] The biblical revelation is that we KNOW in our inner beings that He exists but we suppress that truth.
    Romans 1:18-20

    [3] Since the biblical God has revealed He gave man a nature that is like His own, except in limited ability, we are reasoning, loving, logical, thinking beings that can comprehend God's existence. When you deny His existence then making sense of the universe and our natures (rational and logical) becomes a guessing game that we can never know for sure if we are right.

    One thing is clear, you are on a quest for meaning or else we would not be having this conversation. Why, if the universe has no inherent meaning to it, if there is no ultimate reason to it? Why would you search for meaning in a meaningless universe, a non-reasoning, illogical, impersonal universe of indifference? The Christian worldview has an explanation that makes sense!

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; July 27th, 2017 at 09:53 AM.

  2. #162
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Okay, fine, but why would a Christian defend agnosticism?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Who said I was a Christian?
    When you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm playing the agnostic. 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.
    It was doubtful you were Christian. But you left room for doubt as to a belief in some god with the idea you were only PLAYING the agnostic. You usually play at something you are NOT. If you are agnostic, you don't play at being agnostic because you ARE an agnostic.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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. [1] The primary reason is that my actual beliefs are irrelevant to my arguments. [2] 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. [3] The strengths and weaknesses of my arguments are present in the arguments themselves and my own personal characteristics are irrelevant to that.
    I already know one of your core beliefs. All ideas fall into two camps - God or no God. What I know is whether you fit into the scope of the Christian worldview, or not. You have established you are not Christian. What you say does reveal if you are for or against the Christian belief system (Matthew 12:30). There is no neutrality here.

    I guess that is the difference between our beliefs. As a Christian, I believe God's grace is Good News that is worth sharing. Having said that, I have come to realize that you can't convince someone of something they do not want to be convinced of, no matter how good the evidence. It takes the grace of God.

    I also don't mind people asking specific questions about my belief (because I have reasons for my belief I'm glad to answer. There is no need to shy away because I am afraid people will discover the Emperor has no clothes. My God is fully dressed in royal robes). It helps me to grow in my faith and I sometimes find reasons I had not considered before with objections. Questions and critique test the truthfulness of a belief system. There is nothing I am ashamed of in the Christian belief system, even when it is misrepresented by many (because there is truth to this belief). Misrepresentation is no fault of the system, but the people representing it.

    [1] A person's beliefs shape their argument in many ways.

    [2] A person's core beliefs are what everything else rides on and if they are inconsistent with truth a lot of ill-founded justification is spent in protecting those beliefs.

    [3] Arguments are not built in a vacuum. They eventually trail back to core beliefs. Some things are just presumed.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then the universe does not need to have ultimate meaning in order for existence to be logical.
    Why not, is the first thing that comes to my mind? That is a large assumption. It assumes that something devoid of meaning can be the cause of purpose. You can posit a meaningless universe, but nowhere do you see it. What you do see is logical beings giving rise to other logical beings; you see the uniformity of nature which provides predictability, sustainability and establishes science.

    The difference between our worldviews is that you believe something (whatever that may be) without intent can consistently sustain the universe by chance. If there is no REASON for something to continually do something, then you beg the question that it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Funny, but that is the way a "natural" man would think, by assuming he approaches the problem from a neutral position. The problem is the evidence of origins does not come already interpreted. It depends on starting presuppositions, on your/one's starting point.

    My faith in God started by His orchestrating situations and people in my life. Both kept pointing to Him. Eventual I read the Bible, believing from the start to finish the Bible is His word (my starting presupposition), Him speaking through that word. My belief is that His word has ultimate, necessary authority to it. But I have learned that making sense of existence by believing in the biblical God does not have to be a leap of faith. God has given us evidence that gives reason to reality and what is, that confirms His word as truth. It is reasonable to believe. God's word keeps proving its truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Find the correct answer that has sufficient evidence! There is only one!
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Either you or I am wrong. We both can't be right logically. We believe different things and have a different starting point in how we look at existence. Either there is a surety or it is futile to believe anything about existence is true (maybe it is, and maybe it isn't). Without surety, a position can and does change because there are no absolutes to it. But the truth is absolute and unchanging. I don't see how an agnostic can ever arrive at the truth until he changes his core beliefs. His underlying core ideas/beliefs undermines there being a truth. It refutes itself. There is no fixed address there, no concreteness.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Again, logically Islam and Christianity both can't be true.

    What evidence do the holy books give that confirms the belief of those who put their faith in that particular view?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    With proof, no matter how reasonable it is, some will not believe.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Okay!

    Is it fair to include it in this thread or do I start another? I will also have to ask a few questions to draw out whether you think my view is reasonable or not. I will also be stating facts that I invite you to challenge if you think they are unreasonable to believe they are factual.

    Peter

  3. #163
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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?
    I am defining it as objectively true - HOW it comes to exist does not really matter but God creating it is a common conceptualization of this occurring.

    In other words, objective morality means that certain moral positions are factually accurate in the same way that it's factually accurate that the Earth is round. I have explained a method on how this can occur.

    So I have supported that it's possible that objective morality exists.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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.
    Straw-man. I did not invoke "observed" in my concept. Obviously there are many, many, many aspects of physical reality that man will never observe (like probably 99999.999% of the universe). A planet that we will never see still exists in our universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So if there are multiple types, on what basis are you determining that one must be correct?
    Straw-man. I didn't argue that either of them must be correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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.
    It's pointless to argue that something does exist without data showing that it does. And it's pointless to argue that something does not exist without data showing that it does not. So if one is to analyze the existence of X without data, the only valid position is "maybe".

    And I believe you are misusing the null hypothesis. Here is the null hypothesis:

    "In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.

    The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought”, "H-null", "H-oh", or "H-zero").

    The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is rejected if the observed data are significantly unlikely to have occurred if the null hypothesis were true. In this case the null hypothesis is rejected and an alternative hypothesis is accepted in its place. If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis is not rejected. In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data are. This is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence, in which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree)."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

    So the null hypothesis does not apply to any claim that one might make but a specific type of claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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.
    Straw-man. My argument is not based on the premise that a moral pronouncement is what creates objective morality nor have I compared it to observed physical properties.

    ---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    But I'm not talking about reality being superior. I'm talking about one form of morality being superior to another. And it's pretty clear that thoughts regarding morality that align with reality are superior to thoughts regarding morality that contradict reality.

    So if morality is objective, then one can either agree with objective reality or disagree with objective reality. And agreeing with reality is superior to rejecting reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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""....
    Actually, it is the same. It's your comparison that is faulty. It's not "The Earths is round" vs. "God made morals". It's "God made the universe and everything in it and therefor made BOTH the shape of the planets and the moral laws of the universe". So in this scenario, contradicting moral fact is no difference than contradicting that the Earth is round.

  4. #164
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It was doubtful you were Christian. But you left room for doubt as to a belief in some god with the idea you were only PLAYING the agnostic. You usually play at something you are NOT. If you are agnostic, you don't play at being agnostic because you ARE an agnostic.
    I believe I've explained clearly that whether or not I am an agnostic or a Christian or whatever is entirely irrelevant to my argument. The strengths and weaknesses of one's argument are not effected by what faith they actually hold any more than they are effected by one's gender, race, or political leanings.

    Therefore I am no longer discussing this issue. It is irrelevant to the debate and therefore spam.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I guess that is the difference between our beliefs. As a Christian, I believe God's grace is Good News that is worth sharing. Having said that, I have come to realize that you can't convince someone of something they do not want to be convinced of, no matter how good the evidence. It takes the grace of God.
    Actually evidence will usually do the trick. Seriously, I have never seen anything resembling actual evidence in any of these debates. It always seems to come down to being asked to take one's word for it.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why not, is the first thing that comes to my mind? That is a large assumption. It assumes that something devoid of meaning can be the cause of purpose.
    And assuming the opposite is likewise a large assumption. If one does not assume either, then they hold that either is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You can posit a meaningless universe, but nowhere do you see it.
    Nor does one see a universe that has meaning outside of what meaning people give it. There is no observable meaning to the Earth revolving around the sun except what meaning people ascribe to it. The only observable meaning of anything comes from people and one could posit that that is the ONLY source of meaning in the universe. I'm not saying that is the case but one can posit it based on what is observed.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What you do see is logical beings giving rise to other logical beings; you see the uniformity of nature which provides predictability, sustainability and establishes science.
    Without the need to posit that an external intelligence is behind it all. Whether there is or is not is still a scientifically unanswered question.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The difference between our worldviews is that you believe something (whatever that may be) without intent can consistently sustain the universe by chance. If there is no REASON for something to continually do something, then you beg the question that it does.
    Actually an agnostic does not believe in either position but withholds judgment until someone proves something.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Funny, but that is the way a "natural" man would think, by assuming he approaches the problem from a neutral position. The problem is the evidence of origins does not come already interpreted. It depends on starting presuppositions, on your/one's starting point.
    Actually, the scientific viewpoint starts with no presuppositions. It looks at the evidence without assumptions on how it fits together and then draw the most likely conclusion based on the evidence itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    My faith in God started by His orchestrating situations and people in my life. Both kept pointing to Him. Eventual I read the Bible, believing from the start to finish the Bible is His word (my starting presupposition), Him speaking through that word. My belief is that His word has ultimate, necessary authority to it. But I have learned that making sense of existence by believing in the biblical God does not have to be a leap of faith. God has given us evidence that gives reason to reality and what is, that confirms His word as truth. It is reasonable to believe. God's word keeps proving its truth.
    And in all honestly, that is completely legitimate and I would never attempt to tell you that what happened to you and how you came to believe as you do is illegitimate.

    But despite however valid your experience is, it does not amount to observable evidence of what you believe and therefore does not count as support that your beliefs are true. You can't convince others, especially strangers, with your personal story.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Either you or I am wrong. We both can't be right logically. We believe different things and have a different starting point in how we look at existence. Either there is a surety or it is futile to believe anything about existence is true (maybe it is, and maybe it isn't). Without surety, a position can and does change because there are no absolutes to it. But the truth is absolute and unchanging. I don't see how an agnostic can ever arrive at the truth until he changes his core beliefs. His underlying core ideas/beliefs undermines there being a truth. It refutes itself. There is no fixed address there, no concreteness.
    And an agnostic is always open to having his core beliefs changed. Agnosticism is not ALWAYS saying "I don't know" - it's saying "I don't know" until one has a good reason to accept a particular answer and the only logical reason to accept any answer is because one sees enough evidence to lead them to accept that answer. The only alternative is to accept an answer despite not having evidence to justify accepting that answer, which is not logical.

    Taking your story as an example, you didn't believe in God until God made his presence known to you. Once that happened, then you could justify your personal theism. But BEFORE that moment, you could not justify your personal theism for you had little to convince you that God existed. So prior to that moment, agnosticism would have been the only rational choice for you.

    Agnosticism does not mean that one does not seek answers - it just means that they don't accept any answers until they have a logical reason to accept them.





    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Is it fair to include it in this thread or do I start another? I will also have to ask a few questions to draw out whether you think my view is reasonable or not. I will also be stating facts that I invite you to challenge if you think they are unreasonable to believe they are factual.
    I'd say you should start a new thread for this.

  5. #165
    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 am defining it as objectively true - HOW it comes to exist does not really matter but God creating it is a common conceptualization of this occurring.
    This definition is not valid or complete since it consists of only an adjverb and an adjective ("objectively true"). What is it? That's what's missing from your definition now considering you've back-pedalled from the definition being moral pronouncements forwarded by an objective source. Further, simpy claiming that "God creating it is a common conceptualization" is not a definition nor support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In other words, objective morality means that certain moral positions are factually accurate in the same way that it's factually accurate that the Earth is round. I have explained a method on how this can occur. So I have supported that it's possible that objective morality exists.
    No, you haven't, unfortunately. You've yet again simply claimed that a moral position is a fact without support or an explanation of what that even means. You keep simply repeating that objective morality forwarded by a deity is the same as observed facts like the Earth being round.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man. I did not invoke "observed" in my concept.
    You don't need to. It's implied by the very nature of the examples you've provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Obviously there are many, many, many aspects of physical reality that man will never observe (like probably 99999.999% of the universe). A planet that we will never see still exists in our universe.
    None of those aspects would be considered facts until they were observed and confirmed as demonstrable. Until then, they're just unknown.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man. I didn't argue that either of them must be correct.
    I'm confused, doesn't one of them have to be correct for your OP to have any conclusion? Or could they both be correct? What does it even mean in your OP for a type of morality to be correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's pointless to argue that something does exist without data showing that it does. And it's pointless to argue that something does not exist without data showing that it does not. So if one is to analyze the existence of X without data, the only valid position is "maybe".
    No, the only valid position is "it is unknown", not "maybe". "It is unknown" includes a rejection of the hypothesis that X exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I believe you are misusing the null hypothesis. Here is the null hypothesis:
    You've claimed that I'm misusing the null hypothesis and then simply pasted paragraphs from the wiki. Way to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the null hypothesis does not apply to any claim that one might make but a specific type of claim.
    What specific type of claim? Support both these assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man. My argument is not based on the premise that a moral pronouncement is what creates objective morality
    Your initial OP defined objective morality as morals which are forwarded by an objective source and giving an example of a moral as "God says Murder is wrong". Those are moral pronouncements. You then back-pedalled from this to claim that the objective morality is not moral pronouncements from an objective source, but simply something which exists because it was created by a deity without explaining what that something actually is.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    nor have I compared it to observed physical properties.
    Um, you have only compared it to observed physical properties. How is the the fact of whether the Earth is round not an observed physical property?
    So again, simply asserting that objective morality is the same as observable and demonstrable facts does not make it so.

  6. #166
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This definition is not valid or complete since it consists of only an adjverb and an adjective ("objectively true"). What is it?
    An objective moral position is one that is objective true. Do you not understand this? If not, why don't you understand it? If so, then you understand it and I've provided a valid definition as in it communicates what objective morality is.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    That's what's missing from your definition now considering you've back-pedalled from the definition being moral pronouncements forwarded by an objective source. Further, simpy claiming that "God creating it is a common conceptualization" is not a definition nor support.
    No. I NEVER claimed that the definition was moral pronouncement. BOTH examples that I provided (the pronouncement and the creation) are EXAMPLES of how objective morality can be created. There are other ways it could happen as well. You are taking what I provided as examples and mistaking them for premises (things that must happen in order for objective morality to exist).



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You don't need to. It's implied by the very nature of the examples you've provided.
    It's not implied at all. Just because the subject has certain properties does not mean that I've forwarded those properties as part of the comparison. The Earth is likewise primary made of Earth and Water - was I implying that as well? Of course not. You and you alone introduced observation as something relevant to my analogy and it's not relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    None of those aspects would be considered facts until they were observed and confirmed as demonstrable. Until then, they're just unknown.
    But they existed anyway. The other planets of this solar system existed prior to anyone being able to observe them.

    I am talking about objective facts - what's true. And what's true is true even if no one can confirm that it's true. Your arguments regarding observers are not part of my argument and therefore are not part of a valid rebuttal.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm confused, doesn't one of them have to be correct for your OP to have any conclusion? Or could they both be correct? What does it even mean in your OP for a type of morality to be correct?
    Well, you have raised the issue that even if objective morality exists, we can still have subjective morality (since one can still subjectively disagree with objective moral truth). So while I accept that, it still stands that is morality is objective, then objective morality is superior to subjective morality (because facts trump opinion). And conversely, if there is no objective morality then subjective morality is superior because its proponents are correct that morality has a strictly human source and those who hold that morality is object are just flat-out wrong.

    Hopefully that clears it up.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, the only valid position is "it is unknown", not "maybe". "It is unknown" includes a rejection of the hypothesis that X exists.
    "rejection" as in not accepting that it's scientifically valid. But that in no ways supports that the opposite conclusion is true.

    If no one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist, then whether God exists or not is unknown.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What specific type of claim? Support both these assertions.
    Actually, the burden is yours. YOU are the one who is using the null hypothesis without supporting that it actually supports your position.

    So please support that the null hypothesis supports the argument that you are making and please use a link regarding the null hypothesis to support your assertion.

    But either way, I do agree that any hypothesis that is not supported can be rejected. But again, that does not mean the opposite conclusion is supported.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your initial OP defined objective morality as morals which are forwarded by an objective source and giving an example of a moral as "God says Murder is wrong". Those are moral pronouncements. You then back-pedalled from this to claim that the objective morality is not moral pronouncements from an objective source, but simply something which exists because it was created by a deity without explaining what that something actually is.
    Well, what did God create? The universe. And morality is part of the universe. So assuming you know what the universe is and what morality is, this should be cleared up.

    And I don't hold that God's moral pronouncement would not qualify as objective morality. But obviously that would mean that there is a morality that God did not create and then said "I agree with that so that is morally correct" which would qualify as objective morality. But this is all for examples sake so creation is a better and clearer example.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Um, you have only compared it to observed physical properties. How is the the fact of whether the Earth is round not an observed physical property?
    Because the Earth is round even if no one observes that it is. If THAT confuses you, then let me switch to an example of a physical property that is not observed instead. Somewhere out there is a planet that no one has observed and is also round. It's an objective fact that this planet is round.

    And more to the point, this is just an example. My argument does not hinge one iota on the validity of the comparison. I'm just using an example to help communicate what I mean. So again, if using an example of something that you can see confuses the issue (it shouldn't but apparently it does), then I will just switch the example to something that one cannot see. But that doesn't matter either. Assuming you understand what an objective fact is, then I don't need to provide an example at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So again, simply asserting that objective morality is the same as observable and demonstrable facts does not make it so.
    And again, I never asserted such a thing.
    Last edited by mican333; July 27th, 2017 at 12:50 PM.

  7. #167
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So while I accept that, it still stands that is morality is objective, then objective morality is superior to subjective morality (because facts trump opinion).
    Hopefully that clears it up.
    It most certainly does not. You say it over and over, but until you say why, it holds the same weight as the first time you said it.

    Why does it "stand" other than you say so?

    If our current reality is "objective morality is true", how is it necessarily "superior" to any/all other subjective moralities that are possible?

    How would it be "superior" to any/all other objective realities that are possible?

    Perhaps I am not wording my question right, because you seem to be going around it...

    ---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Regarding God's goodness:
    The Fall of humanity (in Adam) has definitely changed the goodness variable in that man in his volition chooses evil and calls it good. God placed restriction on humans and the natural world after the Fall - Genesis 3:14-19; 22-24.
    Then you take the Adam and Eve part of the Bible as literal, as in "they were the first two human's and no others existed at the time"?

    ---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    One thing is clear, you are on a quest for meaning or else we would not be having this conversation. Why, if the universe has no inherent meaning to it, if there is no ultimate reason to it? Why would you search for meaning in a meaningless universe, a non-reasoning, illogical, impersonal universe of indifference? The Christian worldview has an explanation that makes sense!
    Peter
    I believe if "you" search for God" you will find him. If your search is for truth,...... not as much....

    I am on a search for truth. However, I don't feel my life would be "meaningless" if there were no God. I have no idea why a person would feel this way????
    If there were a God, I don't see an issue.
    If there is not. I still don't see an issue.


    What am I missing?
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 27th, 2017 at 06:55 PM.

  8. #168
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It most certainly does not. You say it over and over, but until you say why, it holds the same weight as the first time you said it.

    Why does it "stand" other than you say so?

    If our current reality is "objective morality is true", how is it necessarily "superior" to any/all other subjective moralities that are possible?
    By being correct. If it's objectively true that murder is immoral, then it's as much a fact that murder is immoral as it's a fact that the Earth is round. So let's continue with that analogy,

    When it comes to the Earth being round, saying that it IS round (objective) is superior to saying that whether it is round is a matter of opinion (subjective). It's superior by being correct versus being wrong.

    I forward the premise that being correct is superior to being wrong. Assuming you accept that premise, then you can see why objective morality is superior to subjective morality (if objective morality exists).

    If you don't accept it, then you should explain why being correct is not necessarily superior to being wrong.

  9. #169
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It was doubtful you were Christian. But you left room for doubt as to a belief in some god with the idea you were only PLAYING the agnostic. You usually play at something you are NOT. If you are agnostic, you don't play at being agnostic because you ARE an agnostic.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I believe I've explained clearly that whether or not I am an agnostic or a Christian or whatever is entirely irrelevant to my argument. The strengths and weaknesses of one's argument are not effected by what faith they actually hold any more than they are effected by one's gender, race, or political leanings.
    On the one hand, you put forth the idea that you are agnostic, then, on the contrary, you allege you are only playing the part. My opinion is that it can get confusing on the points you are trying to make when you play both sides of the fence as devil's advocate to two opposing positions. Truth takes a back-burner.

    As for your worldview as being irrelevant to your argument, why, the whole argument is shaped by your worldview. It can't help but be shaped by your inner convictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Therefore I am no longer discussing this issue. It is irrelevant to the debate and therefore spam.
    My belief is every worldview slants a debate towards its view. A person tends to defend the views he/she most passionately holds. I realize I am not neutral. Sometimes I don't think others realize they are not neutral either.

    [QUOTE=PGA2;555183]I guess that is the difference between our beliefs. As a Christian, I believe God's grace is Good News that is worth sharing. Having said that, I have come to realize that you can't convince someone of something they do not want to be convinced of, no matter how good the evidence. It takes the grace of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually evidence will usually do the trick. Seriously, I have never seen anything resembling actual evidence in any of these debates. It always seems to come down to being asked to take one's word for it.
    What is your definition of "evidence?"

    I ask so I can understand it and perhaps meet your criteria, then you can't say I did not provide any evidence. I'm also looking to see if your rules are too stringent, that they can't even meet your strict standards in all areas of your life.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why not, is the first thing that comes to my mind? That is a large assumption. It assumes that something devoid of meaning can be the cause of purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And assuming the opposite is likewise a large assumption. If one does not assume either, then they hold that either is possible.
    The correspondence theory of truth (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...orrespondence/) confirms my point of view, not yours. I see meaning originating from minds. I do not see meaning arising from rocks and chemicals mixing (that a position devoid of God would have to hold). There is a giant leap there that CLAIMS that unintentional happenstance can lead to mindful beings. It is not science; it is philosophy and bad philosophy at that.

    (Which leads to my next statement below)

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You can posit a meaningless universe, but nowhere do you see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] Nor does one see a universe that has meaning outside of what meaning people give it. [2] There is no observable meaning to the Earth revolving around the sun except what meaning people ascribe to it. [3] The only observable meaning of anything comes from people and one could posit that that is the ONLY source of meaning in the universe. I'm not saying that is the case but one can posit it based on what is observed.
    [1] The question is why are we finding meaning in a meaningless universe? For something that is unintentional, irrational, illogical, unthinking, impersonal, the universe sure "acts" like there is a Mind behind it. It doesn't make sense that there is no meaning behind it.

    How can you make sense of a meaningless universe? You should not be able to make sense of blind, random, chance happenstance.

    The statement that there is likely no meaning behind the universe suggests meaning originating from meaninglessness.

    [2] The FACT that we can find meaning there suggests ultimate mind behind it because neither your mind nor my mind is responsible for it, yet we still find meaning there. As you said, mean is a trait of (logical, personal) beings.

    That we can put logical equations into laws reasonably suggests a Mind is behind these equations. We do not just materialize them. We discover them. We discover the truth. The truth is something that is absolute. It does not depend on your mind or my mind, but it does depend on mindfulness. It is something our limited minds discover. It was there before we thought of something being true.

    2+2=4 is something you and I learn. It does not depend on our minds for its truth, yet without mindfulness, there would be no knowledge of it, and if that is the case, there would be no truth to be had at all. What is more, 2+2=4 is a universal, absolute, eternal truth. Truth does not change (I can clarify that statement more if needed).

    [3] Which being is necessary for it to be true? It is not you, or me. We discovered this truth. We did not create it. It was there before you or I thought of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What you do see is logical beings giving rise to other logical beings; you see the uniformity of nature which provides predictability, sustainability and establishes science.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Without the need to posit that an external intelligence is behind it all. Whether there is or is not is still a scientifically unanswered question.
    You beg the question that conscious, mindful beings can evolve from mindless, dumb, unintentional matter. Show me where you EVER witness this. You know you don't see it, you just make it up that this can happen. It is NOT science; it is scientism. I, on the other hand, only witness being coming from another being. I do NOT beg this question. It corresponds to what is fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The difference between our worldviews is that you believe something (whatever that may be) without intent can consistently sustain the universe by chance. If there is no REASON for something to continually do something, then you beg the question that it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually an agnostic does not believe in either position but withholds judgment until someone proves something.
    Then you are what is termed a soft agnostic.

    Here is the self-refutation of hard agnosticism:

    "Plus, the dogmatic form of agnosticism is actually self-defeating (at the same time affirming and denying the identical claim) for the position simultaneously asserts that one doesn’t know if God exists and yet knows enough about God to assert that no one can know that God exists. Hard agnostics, in effect, claim to have knowledge about a topic that they claim is not possible to know anything about. In his book No Doubt About It, Christian philosopher Winfried Corduan notes the following: “Thus agnosticism pivots on a contradiction by having to maintain that at one and the same time it is both possible and impossible to know something about God.”
    Hard agnosticism asserts the self-destructing claim that “one knows enough about God in order to affirm that nothing can be known about God.”1 Thus, the extreme claims of skepticism first affirm what they ultimately deny."

    http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-d...self-defeating

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Funny, but that is the way a "natural" man would think, by assuming he approaches the problem from a neutral position. The problem is the evidence of origins does not come already interpreted. It depends on starting presuppositions, on your/one's starting point.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, the scientific viewpoint starts with no presuppositions. It looks at the evidence without assumptions on how it fits together and then draw the most likely conclusion based on the evidence itself.
    The scientific viewpoint ALWAYS starts with a presuppositional and philosophical starting point. It chooses one side or the other. Theories are built on philosophies. Someone poses a view, and it is empirically tested for its truth claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    My faith in God started by His orchestrating situations and people in my life. Both kept pointing to Him. Eventual I read the Bible, believing from the start to finish the Bible is His word (my starting presupposition), Him speaking through that word. My belief is that His word has ultimate, necessary authority to it. But I have learned that making sense of existence by believing in the biblical God does not have to be a leap of faith. God has given us evidence that gives reason to reality and what is, that confirms His word as truth. It is reasonable to believe. God's word keeps proving its truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And in all honestly, that is completely legitimate and I would never attempt to tell you that what happened to you and how you came to believe as you do is illegitimate.

    But despite however valid your experience is, it does not amount to observable evidence of what you believe and therefore does not count as support that your beliefs are true. You can't convince others, especially strangers, with your personal story.
    I can't convince anyone who does not want to be convinced. I have known that as a fact for many, many years. What I can do is shine the light of Scripture, or the Christian worldview, on their worldview and show that its foundation is built in mid-air. It has no means of support. You admit this. You simply confess, "I don't know." There is nothing to build on in agnosticism.

    I can also show that there is evidence despite the constant denial of it by atheists and agnostics, which I will start doing shortly.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Either you or I am wrong. We both can't be right logically. We believe different things and have a different starting point in how we look at existence. Either there is a surety or it is futile to believe anything about existence is true (maybe it is, and maybe it isn't). Without surety, a position can and does change because there are no absolutes to it. But the truth is absolute and unchanging. I don't see how an agnostic can ever arrive at the truth until he changes his core beliefs. His underlying core ideas/beliefs undermines there being a truth. It refutes itself. There is no fixed address there, no concreteness.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] And an agnostic is always open to having his core beliefs changed. Agnosticism is not ALWAYS saying "I don't know" - it's saying "I don't know" until one has a good reason to accept a particular answer and the only logical reason to accept any answer is because one sees enough evidence to lead them to accept that answer. The only alternative is to accept an answer despite not having evidence to justify accepting that answer, which is not logical.
    [1] Here are some leading dictionaries defining agnosticism:

    Wikipedia: Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable

    Collins English Dictionary: An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not.

    Urban Dictionary: An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings.

    Merriam-Webster:
    1:* a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;
    2:* a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

    Dictionary.com:
    noun
    1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
    2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
    3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic
    adjective
    4. of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
    5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
    6. not taking a stand on something, especially not holding either of two usually strongly opposed positions (often used in combination

    Whichever view you hold, hard or soft agnosticism is beside the point I want to make. My point is that both views are self-defeating. I don't see how they can ever come to truth or knowledge unless they jettison their belief system.

    You speak of God all the time. How can you talk about Someone you have no knowledge of without having some knowledge of Him?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Taking your story as an example, you didn't believe in God until God made his presence known to you. Once that happened, then you could justify your personal theism. But BEFORE that moment, you could not justify your personal theism for you had little to convince you that God existed. So prior to that moment, agnosticism would have been the only rational choice for you.
    I tended to dismiss the idea of God because I was doing my own thing and had not thought about ultimate questions concerning my existence until my father died. Reading the Bible brought me to a confrontation with God.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Agnosticism does not mean that one does not seek answers - it just means that they don't accept any answers until they have a logical reason to accept them.
    (Soft agnosticism)

    I will hold you to that definition then. If I can show you that the evidence is logical and reasonable, then your position is no longer tenable.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Is it fair to include it in this thread or do I start another? I will also have to ask a few questions to draw out whether you think my view is reasonable or not. I will also be stating facts that I invite you to challenge if you think they are unreasonable to believe they are factual.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'd say you should start a new thread for this.
    Okay, I'm going to label it, "Evidence for Mican."

    It will take me a day or so to construct a case (plus a break for the weekend).

    I'm going to state some "evidence" that I think is rather obvious, but if you do not believe it is, then challenge it, and I will try to lay down the facts, point by point that you can then dispute further as to their logic and reasonableness.

    Peter

  10. #170
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    An objective moral position is one that is objective true. Do you not understand this? If not, why don't you understand it? If so, then you understand it and I've provided a valid definition as in it communicates what objective morality is.
    So, for the record, you are defining objective morality as positions on morality that are objectively true.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. I NEVER claimed that the definition was moral pronouncement. BOTH examples that I provided (the pronouncement and the creation) are EXAMPLES of how objective morality can be created. There are other ways it could happen as well. You are taking what I provided as examples and mistaking them for premises (things that must happen in order for objective morality to exist).
    I'm sorry, but that's how you defined it in your OP (god forwards morals, and an example is god saying murder is immoral). That's what a pronouncement is. In any case, you've now re-defined objective morality as "positions on morality which are objectively true". This seems to exclude any objective source. Is one required for this new definition of yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not implied at all. Just because the subject has certain properties does not mean that I've forwarded those properties as part of the comparison. The Earth is likewise primary made of Earth and Water - was I implying that as well? Of course not. You and you alone introduced observation as something relevant to my analogy and it's not relevant.
    It's relevant because that's what facts are - something that has been proven correct, demonstrated, or claimed to be so. You keep asserting that something which is completely unknown and nebulous should be compared to actual facts which we have verified. You can talk about whether your objective morals could at some point be facts, but they would only be facts once they are verified. Take the shape of the Earth example: before it was verified what the shape was, the shape was unknown and, therefore, not a fact. We now can say with a very high level of confidence that the Earth is (and was), in fact, spherical. But that only happened after we were able to verify it. Before then it was an untested claim (http://www.auburn.edu/academic/educa...t-opinion.html) that the Earth was spherical. Of course, our means for testing claims has changed drastically over time. So much so that before we had any idea of how to even think about the earth as a sphere, a person would have been entirely justified in saying it was a fact that the Earth was flat based on the ability to test and verify claims at that time ("it looks pretty flat to me").
    Bring it back to your idea about objective morality being a fact (whatever that means), and all we have is an untested claim either way. "Murder is objectively immoral" would not be a fact until it was verified. Afterwards, those that claimed it was would be proven to be right, but before then, they're just making claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But they existed anyway. The other planets of this solar system existed prior to anyone being able to observe them.
    We can now say that they did, yes. But it was not a fact before they were obeserved, just an untested claim, or completely unknown. Anyone claiming that there existed other planets, no matter how correct they ended up being, was simply making a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am talking about objective facts - what's true. And what's true is true even if no one can confirm that it's true. Your arguments regarding observers are not part of my argument and therefore are not part of a valid rebuttal.
    Again, they're not facts, they're unknown. So what's true is true, but if we can't confirm it, then it's unknown, not true. The truth value comes after confirmation, and then we can say that "yes, that's true". I know it's hard to accept that, but that's just the nature of the beast.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, you have raised the issue that even if objective morality exists, we can still have subjective morality (since one can still subjectively disagree with objective moral truth). So while I accept that, it still stands that [if] morality is objective
    This is where you contradict yourself: you first accept there can be both subjective morality and possibly also objective morality, but then go on to make a statement like "if morality is objective".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If no one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist, then whether God exists or not is unknown.
    From this we get the null hypothesis which includes a rejection of the claim that God exists, therefore accepting that claim before the null hypothesis has been disproved is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, the burden is yours. YOU are the one who is using the null hypothesis without supporting that it actually supports your position. So please support that the null hypothesis supports the argument that you are making and please use a link regarding the null hypothesis to support your assertion.
    Since you refuse to explain why you think that I'm misusing the null hypothesis, I can only assume, based on the wiki paragraphs you quoted, that you're appealing to the numerous references to statistics and statistical research within those paragraphs as support that the null hypothesis only applies in situations where people are doing statistics. Unfortunately, this is a very superficial understanding of statistics vs. science, which are in fact so closely related that you can't really have one without the other. In other words, doing statistics is science, and doing science involves the same principles as statistics. Here's a simpler definition for you: "The null is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis (the hypothesis/claim which is being made)" (https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis). So, for the claim "The universe was created by an intelligence", the null hypothesis is "The universe was not created by an intelligence".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, what did God create? The universe. And morality is part of the universe. So assuming you know what the universe is and what morality is, this should be cleared up.
    Again, it depends how you define morality, and since you've not defined it clearly, this is not clear at all. You seem to be entirely avoiding providing any support for how objective morality could be a fact rather than a pronouncement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I don't hold that God's moral pronouncement would not qualify as objective morality. But obviously that would mean that there is a morality that God did not create and then said "I agree with that so that is morally correct" which would qualify as objective morality. But this is all for examples sake so creation is a better and clearer example.
    Creation is not a better example because it's ill-defined. I could just as well say "morality-farting unicorns did it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because the Earth is round even if no one observes that it is.
    You can only make that statement now that we know it is. Before that it was not a fact, it was unknown. The same goes with any objective source forwarding its morality - it's simply unknown, and any claim to know that it's a fact is by definitional irrational, just like the claims of the Earth being round were irrational prior to there being any demonstration of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If THAT confuses you, then let me switch to an example of a physical property that is not observed instead. Somewhere out there is a planet that no one has observed and is also round. It's an objective fact that this planet is round.
    This is not a physical prroperty or a fact, it's a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm just using an example to help communicate what I mean. So again, if using an example of something that you can see confuses the issue (it shouldn't but apparently it does), then I will just switch the example to something that one cannot see. But that doesn't matter either. Assuming you understand what an objective fact is, then I don't need to provide an example at all.
    You still haven't explained how god saying "murder is immoral" makes "murder is immoral" a fact. Switching from god saying it's immoral to god simply creating the moral principle doesn't work either, since principles don't exist, aren't created, and aren't facts in the same sense as the fact that the Earth is round.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And again, I never asserted such a thing.
    You did. Facts are by definition verified. Therefore, what you're calling a fact is not until it has been verified.

  11. #171
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By being correct.
    Being "correct" in this sense only means you have actually identified whether you live in an objective or subjective (or both) moral universe. This still doesn't speak to how this would necessarily be "superior".
    So, if this universe has "objective morality", I see absolutely no reason to conclude it is "superior" to any and all possibilities, solely because it exists.

    Really what you are saying is "if the universe is actually "X", then it's superior to any unrealized possibility that could possibly exist"
    (if I may paraphrase since I am still not understanding you position)

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If it's objectively true that murder is immoral, then it's as much a fact
    We agree Although, what does this do for us.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So let's continue with that analogy,

    When it comes to the Earth being round, saying that it IS round (objective) is superior to saying that whether it is round is a matter of opinion (subjective).
    Let's find a new one, cause this one just doesn't work. You and I can verify the shape of the earth. Morals,...not so much.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By being correct. It's superior by being correct versus being wrong.

    I forward the premise that being correct is superior to being wrong. Assuming you accept that premise, then you can see why objective morality is superior to subjective morality (if objective morality exists).
    We agree again But it doesn't help your case much here.
    But again, in this scenario, all you were "correct" about was the state of morals in this universe, not whether the morals in this universe were "superior" to any and all other possibilities.

    ---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you don't accept it, then you should explain why being correct is not necessarily superior to being wrong.
    Because being "correct" about the current moral system of a universe speaks nothing to the "superiority" of that system when compared to all other possible moral systems!!

    I am honestly running out of ways to say this. I am not sure what part of my question is unclear?

    If being "correct" about the state of the current moral system, makes all other possible moral systems "wrong" (IOW, less "superior" or inferior), you are going to need to provide some support that is currently sorely lacking.
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 28th, 2017 at 05:31 PM.

  12. #172
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then you take the Adam and Eve part of the Bible as literal, as in "they were the first two human's and no others existed at the time"?
    Yes, I take them as literal human beings. They are included in historical narrative and genealogical lists.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    One thing is clear, you are on a quest for meaning or else we would not be having this conversation. Why, if the universe has no inherent meaning to it, if there is no ultimate reason to it? Why would you search for meaning in a meaningless universe, a non-reasoning, illogical, impersonal universe of indifference? The Christian worldview has an explanation that makes sense!
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I believe if "you" search for God" you will find him. If your search is for truth,...... not as much....
    In regards to God, I do too, if you come to Him with a sincere heart and don't waiver in your faith and trust. He has promised to reveal Himself (Hebrews 11:6).

    In regards to truth, truth is absolute. It does not change. It has a specific identity (John 17:17).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am on a search for truth. However, I don't feel my life would be "meaningless" if there were no God. I have no idea why a person would feel this way????
    If there were a God, I don't see an issue.
    If there is not. I still don't see an issue.


    What am I missing?
    When you are speaking of qualitative values (morals and meaning) I don't see how they mean anything unless you have a fixed (ideal) value by which to measure change and value against. If you don't have that unchanging basis then, morals and meaning becomes arbitrary. They become whatever one makes them (much of the time by force). If you happen to live in a society that has Judeo-Christian values you tend to do okay, but if you live under a tyrannical regime (North Korea is a prime example) your individual freedoms can be quite unbearable. That is when it is reassuring to know that we do have utter accountability for injustices - we all answer to God. In an atheist universe (one that operates under the assumption that ultimately the universe is meaningless), someone may very well get away with what you would see as an injustice because in the end nothing ultimately matters. There may very well be no accountability for someone who tortures innocent babies for fun in an atheist universe (a universe where atheism was a true belief). The inconsistency with the atheist worldview is that many want to make it matter and make it meaningful in the here and now. They borrow from the Christian worldview that says it does ultimately matter.

    So, what you are missing is that, if you are wrong you will miss out on something far better than what you experience in the here and now, and, if you are wrong you will have to answer for any wrongs/evils/sins that you have committed in your brief life on earth. If you are wrong, this life is not even a spec of eternity.

    Peter

  13. #173
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Peter
    I appreciate your sincere openness.
    As I probe, challenge, and discuss what you are forwarding as "truth", please do not take offense at anything I might say or ask. Sometimes I exchange expediency for eloquence when trying to get my point across.

    ---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Yes, I take them as literal human beings. They are included in historical narrative and genealogical lists.
    Peter
    I ask because I don't want to waste your time if I argue against something you are not forwarding.

    So I get Adam and Eve are the first two humans that exist. They have children. Now we have two generations of humans.

    Where does the next generation come from??????

    ---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    In regards to God, I do too, if you come to Him with a sincere heart and don't waiver in your faith and trust. He has promised to reveal Himself (Hebrews 11:6).
    Peter
    I believe my heart could not be more sincere in my quest

    ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    In regards to truth, truth is absolute. It does not change.
    Peter
    I totally agree

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    When you are speaking of qualitative values (morals and meaning) I don't see how they mean anything unless you have a fixed (ideal) value by which to measure change and value against. If you don't have that unchanging basis then, morals and meaning becomes arbitrary. They become whatever one makes them (much of the time by force). If you happen to live in a society that has Judeo-Christian values you tend to do okay, but if you live under a tyrannical regime (North Korea is a prime example) your individual freedoms can be quite unbearable. That is when it is reassuring to know that we do have utter accountability for injustices - we all answer to God. In an atheist universe (one that operates under the assumption that ultimately the universe is meaningless), someone may very well get away with what you would see as an injustice because in the end nothing ultimately matters. There may very well be no accountability for someone who tortures innocent babies for fun in an atheist universe (a universe where atheism was a true belief). The inconsistency with the atheist worldview is that many want to make it matter and make it meaningful in the here and now. They borrow from the Christian worldview that says it does ultimately matter.
    Peter
    And I don't see why I would need something that created the universe to tell me murder is wrong. One need only experience it in their own life to understand this. I understand kinda when you say "morals become arbitrary", but the Christian God may not exist (hence faith), so we might be actually living in such a situation where that is true, and yet, we still as a society, hold murder as immoral. And yet, Christians murder. Atheists murder....

    It's quite a stretch to say atheists (in general) would condone baby torture. I am not an atheist, but this would still need some serious support.

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, what you are missing is that, if you are wrong you will miss out on something far better than what you experience in the here and now, and, if you are wrong you will have to answer for any wrongs/evils/sins that you have committed in your brief life on earth. If you are wrong, this life is not even a spec of eternity.
    Peter
    My question was basically, why should I feel my life is meaningless if the Christian God does not exist. Indeed, I don't understand why anyone would feel this way.

    So again I posit:
    "whether the Christian God exists or not my life still has meaning"

    Your answer speaks to a different question (which we will get to).

  14. #174
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Being "correct" in this sense only means you have actually identified whether you live in an objective or subjective (or both) moral universe. This still doesn't speak to how this would necessarily be "superior".
    So, if this universe has "objective morality", I see absolutely no reason to conclude it is "superior" to any and all possibilities, solely because it exists.
    I'm not talking about the superiority of our universe to other universes. My argument only refers to the universe that you and I are currently in.

    In THIS universe, if objective morality exists and therefore if it's an objective fact that, say, murder is immoral, then:

    Saying "Murder IS objectively immoral" is a superior statement to "Whether murder is immoral or not is up the individual" because it's correct while the other statement is incorrect.

    And saying "morality is objective" is a superior statement to "morality is subjective" because it's also correct.

  15. #175
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm sorry, but that's how you defined it in your OP (god forwards morals, and an example is god saying murder is immoral). That's what a pronouncement is.
    And it's ONE way that God can FORWARD a moral position. Another way is to create morality. I provided an example of forwarding morality and it in no way was intended to be the only possible way to forward it. And since you apparently didn't like that example, I provided a different one. Again, the example is not support but just a means to communicate what I mean. Since one example didn't succeed in communicating to you, I picked a different example.

    So you should use the second example and ignore the first one since it apparently did not succeed in communicating the concept to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In any case, you've now re-defined objective morality as "positions on morality which are objectively true". This seems to exclude any objective source. Is one required for this new definition of yours?
    That's how I would define "objective moral positions", not "objective morality".

    And under objective morality, per the OP, "There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow". That has not changed at all. Whether this being states that positions are objectively moral or creates the morals, it all falls under objective morality.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It's relevant because that's what facts are - something that has been proven correct, demonstrated, or claimed to be so. You keep asserting that something which is completely unknown and nebulous should be compared to actual facts which we have verified.
    And they CAN be compared. They just aren't the same in EVERY SINGLE WAY. But the way that the are similar very much makes my point.

    There is a thing called physical reality. Within physical reality there are things that are observed and there are things that are not observed. The things that are not observed but exist (like an undiscovered planet) still exist. Objective morality, if it exists, is like an undiscovered planet. It exists but we just can't detect it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You can talk about whether your objective morals could at some point be facts, but they would only be facts once they are verified.
    This is just a semantics game. You are restricting the definition of "facts" to only the facts that are independently verified. Not only does not actual definition of "fact" not require this, it is also not what I'm talking about. When I speak of objective morality exist, I am referring to something that exists but has not been verified. And there is no reason that i can't refer to that as a fact. Your choice to define the word to make it mean something else than what I'm saying does not address my argument.

    So quite simply, this whole argument that makes facts something that must be verified to be a fact is a red herring. As I've addressed this here I will not address other points that are based on the same premise to avoid redundancy.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is where you contradict yourself: you first accept there can be both subjective morality and possibly also objective morality, but then go on to make a statement like "if morality is objective".
    I agree that subjective morality can exist in the same way that subjective facts can exist. One is, of course, wrong if they say that what is true, like the Earth being round (and this actually is a controversial position to some as flat-earthers apparently still exist), is subjective but I recognize that one can generate that position and therefore subjective facts can exist.

    So it's kind of a "yes and no" with regards to subjective morality existing if morality is objective. I just recognize that even if morality is objective, one can still take subjective positions regarding morality just like they can take subjective positions regarding hard facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    From this we get the null hypothesis which includes a rejection of the claim that God exists, therefore accepting that claim before the null hypothesis has been disproved is irrational.
    But then I'm not arguing that God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, it depends how you define morality, and since you've not defined it clearly, this is not clear at all. You seem to be entirely avoiding providing any support for how objective morality could be a fact rather than a pronouncement.
    I kind of assumed you know what morality is so I didn't need to define it for you. Morality concerns itself with "right and wrong".

    And I explained how morality can be a fact. God creates morality and if that happens then it's a fact that objective morality exists.

    While I think the pronouncement is also a way for God to create morality, you object to it so instead of arguing over this, I provided a different way. So please use the "create" example and ignore the "pronouncement" example. I am no longer forwarding it so it's irrelevant to our debate. And if you don't engage with the "create" method then you are not addressing my analogy.

    At this point I will ignore all further discussion of the pronouncement issue as it is irrelevant to my argument. You may consider it dropped in favor of a better example.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Creation is not a better example because it's ill-defined. I could just as well say "morality-farting unicorns did it".
    You can intentionally choose a ridiculous method of creating for an example but it would still qualify as an example. If God is a unicorn who created morality by farting out, it would still be a creation. I am using the standard definition of "create" and if you don't understand what "create" means well enough to generate a rebuttal to my argument then you have no rebuttal at all. I have no burden to explain what very common words mean to you. ANY means of creating something, even farting it out, would qualify as creation.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You can only make that statement now that we know it is. Before that it was not a fact, it was unknown. The same goes with any objective source forwarding its morality - it's simply unknown, and any claim to know that it's a fact is by definitional irrational, just like the claims of the Earth being round were irrational prior to there being any demonstration of them.
    Straw-man. I never claimed that it's a fact that objective morality exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You did. Facts are by definition verified. Therefore, what you're calling a fact is not until it has been verified.
    Support or retract that facts, by definition, are verified. And please use a dictionary for your support.

    And even if you are right, you are not addressing the gist of my argument but instead just telling me that I'm using a word incorrectly. Obviously, I am referring to things that exist in reality but aren't necessarily verified. If you want to say I'm using the wrong word (and again, support this assertion), then you aren't saying that my position is even wrong - just that I'm not using the right word to convey it and therefore you are pretty much dodging my argument in lieu of arguing over the definition of a word.
    Last edited by mican333; August 1st, 2017 at 07:40 AM.

  16. #176
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not talking about the superiority of our universe to other universes. My argument only refers to the universe that you and I are currently in.
    Which is what I was talking about as well. Since we don't know what moral universe we live in , could be any, right?

    ---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In THIS universe, if objective morality exists and therefore if it's an objective fact that, say, murder is immoral, then:
    No, whatever this universe is, in no way affects what it's potential could be.

    What are you using for a definition of superior? We must be at a semantical divide, cause this makes no sense otherwise.

    Just because something "is", it's "superior" or "best" or "most desirable" or "can't be improved upon" or "what could be"???

    Am I stating your position correctly??

  17. #177
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Which is what I was talking about as well. Since we don't know what moral universe we live in , could be any, right?
    My argument refers to only one universe - the one that we are currently in. The possibility of other universes existing and the moral structure of those universes is irrelevant to my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No, whatever this universe is, in no way affects what it's potential could be.

    What are you using for a definition of superior? We must be at a semantical divide, cause this makes no sense otherwise.

    Just because something "is", it's "superior" or "best" or "most desirable" or "can't be improved upon" or "what could be"???

    Am I stating your position correctly??
    No.

    I'm not referring to what is but statements/beliefs regarding what is.

    Assuming X is objectively true, which of the following statements is the best?

    1. X is true
    2. X is not true
    3. Whether X is true is a matter of opinion.

    Obviously statement 1 is superior because it best aligns with the reality that X is objectively true.

    Now let's say that murder is objectively immoral. Given that, which statement is superior?

    1. Murder is immoral
    2. Murder is not immoral
    3. Whether murder is immoral is a matter of opinion (which is the subjective view)

    Again, 1 is the superior statement. So if objective morality exists, then it's superior to the alternatives.
    Last edited by mican333; August 1st, 2017 at 07:34 AM.

  18. #178
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My argument refers to only one universe - the one that we are currently in. The possibility of other universes existing and the moral structure of those universes is irrelevant to my argument.
    I must not be relating my thoughts clearly enough. I will try to be more concise.

    I am good with discussing JUST the universe we live in.
    However, we don't know if this universe is Obj moral or Subj moral or both. My point is, since we don't know what the current state of this universe is (morally), it could pretty much be any of those. We just don't know for sure which it is...

    Are we good up till this point?

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No.
    I'm not referring to what is but statements/beliefs regarding what is.
    Could you expand on that thought please?

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming X is objectively true, which of the following statements is the best?

    1. X is true
    2. X is not true
    3. Whether X is true is a matter of opinion.
    Obviously statement 1 is superior because it best aligns with the reality that X is objectively true.
    But you said an evil being (if powerful enough) would be the objective moral source for his creations. I see no reason to rule out that possibility in THIS universe. So there can be more than one "objective morality" possibility in THIS universe!! (although possibly not existing at the same time).

    So how can any particular one objective morality be judged superior?
    (What is the criteria to be deemed "superior". So far, all you have said is "existing" is enough to be superior.)

    Further, since we know nothing about this creator (other than he is powerful and has "morals"), you have given no reason why a subjective system couldn't be superior.

    Really what you are saying is "whatever the actual, current state of morals in this universe are, it is superior to any possibility that could exist in THIS universe, just because it is the current state of morals in THIS universe".
    (I say current because you said the creator could change his mind at anytime and still be the objective source of morals)

    You have given no reason why this obj moral source must have a positive effect on his creations. (I'm assuming you agree morals are for good/positive).

  19. #179
    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 it's ONE way that God can FORWARD a moral position. Another way is to create morality. I provided an example of forwarding morality and it in no way was intended to be the only possible way to forward it. And since you apparently didn't like that example, I provided a different one. Again, the example is not support but just a means to communicate what I mean. Since one example didn't succeed in communicating to you, I picked a different example.
    Again, you said god forwards moral positions as your definition of objective morality, not as an example of one way that god can forward moral positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's how I would define "objective moral positions", not "objective morality". And under objective morality, per the OP, "There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow". That has not changed at all. Whether this being states that positions are objectively moral or creates the morals, it all falls under objective morality.
    Let's re-cap:
    You (post #158): So I have supported that objective morality could exist.
    Me (#159): It depends on how you define [objective morality].
    You (#163): I am defining [objective morality] as objectively true.
    Me (#165): This definition is not valid ("objective morality" can't be defined as just an adverb and an adjective).
    You (#166): An objective moral position is one that is objective true.
    Me (#170): So, for the record, you are defining objective morality as positions on morality that are objectively true.

    Do you not see the problem here? You don't even seem to be able to define objective morality coherently to be able to make whatever claims you are trying to make about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And they CAN be compared. They just aren't the same in EVERY SINGLE WAY. But the way that the are similar very much makes my point.
    You have not supported that they are similar in any way - merely claimed it. Please support that your comparison is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is a thing called physical reality. Within physical reality there are things that are observed and there are things that are not observed. The things that are not observed but exist (like an undiscovered planet) still exist. Objective morality, if it exists, is like an undiscovered planet. It exists but we just can't detect it.
    So you are not defining objective morality as something which exists in the same fashion as a physical planet exists? This is wildly different from your previous definitions, and even less coherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When I speak of objective morality exist, I am referring to something that exists but has not been verified.
    Then all you're doing is making claims of something which has not been defined and could maybe possibly exist (whether it's possible is still unclear, since you have not defined it).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So quite simply, this whole argument that makes facts something that must be verified to be a fact is a red herring.
    No, because it's important that we define things clearly. You've so far attempted to slip your objective morality, whatever it is, into the same category of scientific facts as the physical shape of the Earth, without support for how you have, or one could ever reach that conclusion.
    From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science):
    "In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
    In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I agree that subjective morality can exist in the same way that subjective facts can exist.
    Based on your definition of subjective morality, this statement is also incoherent, since you have not supported your comparison between moral positions of any kind and scientific facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I just recognize that even if morality is objective
    Again, this statement is incoherent, since you have already accepted that both objective and subjective morality could exist, saying something like "if morality is objective" is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I'm not arguing that God exists.
    Oh no, of course not, you're arguing the agnostic position, of course you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I kind of assumed you know what morality is so I didn't need to define it for you. Morality concerns itself with "right and wrong".
    No, since you took it upon yourself to define objective and subjective morality in your OP, I don't buy this.
    In any case, "concerns itself with 'right and wrong'" is not a coherent definition, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I explained how morality can be a fact. God creates morality and if that happens then it's a fact that objective morality exists.
    This is not an explanation of how morality can be a fact. Again, what does it mean for god to simply create morality? What is that? Is he creating some nebulous entity which concerns itself with right and wrong, as per your incoherent definition above? What are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    While I think the pronouncement is also a way for God to create morality, you object to it so instead of arguing over this, I provided a different way. So please use the "create" example and ignore the "pronouncement" example. I am no longer forwarding it so it's irrelevant to our debate. And if you don't engage with the "create" method then you are not addressing my analogy.
    Your "create method" is incoherent and ill-defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You can intentionally choose a ridiculous method of creating for an example but it would still qualify as an example. If God is a unicorn who created morality by farting out, it would still be a creation. I am using the standard definition of "create" and if you don't understand what "create" means well enough to generate a rebuttal to my argument then you have no rebuttal at all. I have no burden to explain what very common words mean to you. ANY means of creating something, even farting it out, would qualify as creation.
    The intentionally religulous unicorn example was intended to highlight the fact that neither the unicorn nor the god explanations actually explain anything. That you say it still qualifies as an example proves the point. Both are incoherent, since they both have no explanatory power.
    If you're basing you entire explanation on the simple definition of "create", the it's still incoherent, because you haven't explained WHAT is being created. You just call it objective morality, don't define what that is, just say it was created, and hope that your position would magically be made clear for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I never claimed that it's a fact that objective morality exists.
    In one of your many posts attempting to compare objective moral "facts" with scientific facts, you made the claim that someone who claimed to know the Earth was round before it was a scientific fact that it was would have had some advantage. The point is that in such a situation, before the claim is verified, it would be irrational to hold. So in order to garner some advantage, according to you, requires that a person holds to irrational and incoherent claims. This entirely nullifies any perceived advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And even if you are right, you are not addressing the gist of my argument but instead just telling me that I'm using a word incorrectly. Obviously, I am referring to things that exist in reality but aren't necessarily verified. If you want to say I'm using the wrong word (and again, support this assertion), then you aren't saying that my position is even wrong - just that I'm not using the right word to convey it and therefore you are pretty much dodging my argument in lieu of arguing over the definition of a word.
    Your argument is still completely incoherent, since you have failed to clearly define the terms you are using.
    The "gist", as it stands now, is "if something that we have not defined or know what it is actually exists, then it's superior".

  20. #180
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I must not be relating my thoughts clearly enough. I will try to be more concise.

    I am good with discussing JUST the universe we live in.
    However, we don't know if this universe is Obj moral or Subj moral or both. My point is, since we don't know what the current state of this universe is (morally), it could pretty much be any of those. We just don't know for sure which it is...

    Are we good up till this point?
    Yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But you said an evil being (if powerful enough) would be the objective moral source for his creations. I see no reason to rule out that possibility in THIS universe. So there can be more than one "objective morality" possibility in THIS universe!! (although possibly not existing at the same time).
    No there cannot be more than one objective reality existing in this universe. The Earth is either round or flat and it can't be both. If you want to posit that in the far future, the rules of physics can change in such a way that the Earth will go from round to flat, that would be referring to a FUTURE reality and not the realty that currently exists, which is the reality that I'm addressing.

    I am referring to this reality at this time. Referring to different reality and/or a different time is to stray away from my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Further, since we know nothing about this creator (other than he is powerful and has "morals"), you have given no reason why a subjective system couldn't be superior.
    Yes I have. I have repeatedly forwarded that what is correct is what is superior. You seem to be ignoring this answer when you say that I have given no reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Really what you are saying is "whatever the actual, current state of morals in this universe are, it is superior to any possibility that could exist in THIS universe, just because it is the current state of morals in THIS universe".
    No I'm not. You've said that before and I've corrected you before. Please address the argument I'm making instead of mistaking my argument.

    I did not argue that a reality is superior.

    I argue that correctness is better than incorrectness. If morality is objective, then an objectively correct moral pronouncement is superior to a subjective moral pronouncement because it's correct. Do you disagree with this? IF so, then present your argument about why I'm wrong about this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You have given no reason why this obj moral source must have a positive effect on his creations. (I'm assuming you agree morals are for good/positive).
    And that's because that's not my argument nor is it a premise for my argument.

 

 
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 6 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
  •