The Moral Argument

[quatona]

Not to those who are not willing to see. I do not know if that is you or not, and even if I did, it is not up to me to reveal God to you. That is something He delights and takes pleasure in doing Himself.

This isn´t Christian Apologetics. This is the philosophy forum in which you tried to defend the moral argument and failed miserably at doing it.

 

[anonymous person]

If something is true, it can be demonstrated, irregardless of a person's willingness.

I never said it couldn't be demonstrated. God can. I just said I couldn't do it.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, the "willful ignorance" defense, once you are unable to defend your argument.
Why is this entire routine (posturing as "Christian philosopher" -> attempts at intellectual arguments -> preaching -> "willful ignorance" -> "i appreciate your input because it strengthens my faith" -> "i´m just a fallible human" -> "only God can...") so predictable in conversations with you?
Well, in former discussion you used to have a decent meltdown (with personal insults etc.) at some point in that routine. That at least has changed - I´ll give you that.

I guess because I have said those things before?

Maybe that is why it is predictable?

 

[anonymous person]

This isn´t Christian Apologetics. This is the philosophy forum in which you tried to defend the moral argument and failed miserably at doing it.

It's a good thing I did not expect you to say that I defended it brilliantly then.

 

[quatona]

I guess because I have said those things before?

Maybe that is why it is predictable?

Ah, yes, now that you mention it!!
Now, the for me inconvenient question is: Why do I time and again fall for your initial lie that you are here as a "Christian philosopher" who wants to have a rational discussion about certain arguments - when I had plenty of opportunity to learn that you eventually will reveal your true intentions (being a preaching apologist) once your arguments have shown to be wanting?
Why do I keep forgetting that lieing for Jesus is morally acceptable in your book?

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, yes, now that you mention it!!
Now, the for me inconvenient question is: Why do I time and again fall for your initial lie that you are here as a "Christian philosopher" who wants to have a rational discussion about certain arguments - when I had plenty of opportunity to learn that you eventually will reveal your true intentions (being a preaching apologist) once your arguments have shown to be wanting?
Why do I keep forgetting that lieing for Jesus is morally acceptable in your book?

Short-term memory loss maybe?

 

[quatona]

It's a good thing I did not expect you to say that I defended it brilliantly then.

As far as my counter-arguments are concerned, you didn´t defend it at all. You just ignored them, for reasons we both know.

 

[quatona]

Short-term memory loss maybe?

No, that can´t be it. I am able to recall those previous instances vividly, after all. I guess I am just cutting you too much slack.

 

[bhsmte]

I never said it couldn't be demonstrated. God can. I just said I couldn't do it.

You know, I can fly by flapping my arms.

I can't demonstrate this to you, but God can.

 

[anonymous person]

No, that can´t be it. I am able to recall those previous instances vividly, after all. I guess I am just cutting you too much slack.

Maybe.

 

[anonymous person]

You know, I can fly by flapping my arms.

I can't demonstrate this to you, but God can.

Ok.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok.

Exactly.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I still think it´s more a tautology than a syllogism - seeing that it requires you to have defined "objective" as "intended/prescribed/determined... by the creator". Y

I never said that. I said that in order for morality to be objective, it must have god as the standard.

 

[quatona]

I never said that. I said that in order for morality to be objective, it must have god as the standard.

Your definition of "objective" was indeed "as intended by a creator". That was actually the only reason why I accepted premise1, in the first place.
If you would like to work from a different definition, just let me know.

 

[anonymous person]

Your definition of "objective" was indeed "as intended by a creator". That was actually the only reason why I accepted premise1, in the first place.
If you would like to work from a different definition, just let me know.

Objective means independent of human opinion/preference/taste etc. etc.

 

[anonymous person]

No one here will say that it's quite alright to hold down a little girl and rape her just for the fun of it.

No one here will venture to say that even if they are so depraved as to really believe that.

They won't say it on here even if they believe it is quite alright because they will not that they be seen as the perverse, depraved, wretch that they really are.

Not only that, but no one here will venture to say that it would be quite alright if everyone in the world thought it was quite alright.

No one here will venture to say that. No one will.

One might, if they had some alcohol in them and felt courageous to attempt to dance around the issue and shift from one foot to the other. One might if they felt bold enough venture to call into question the simple terms I used and ask for me to define them. One might attempt to shift the burden onto some irrelevant topic to divert attention to the point being made.

But no one here will dare say that the badness and wrongness of raping a child for the fun of it is a matter of "perspective".

No one here will say that.

Which means that EVERYONE here believes in the existence of at least one moral value and duty that is grounded independently of the opinions of man, namely that genuine and true badness and wrongness of raping a child for the fun of it.

In the event that there is someone here who thinks it is good and right to rape a child for the fun of it or that such an act has no moral aspect at all, to such a one I have nothing to say.

 

[anonymous person]

And none of this is meant to be a mere academic exercise. It is simply an endeavor at establishing a common ground.

These forums are in small what the world is in large. Everyday we are exposed to stories of moral outrage, moral indignation, bombings, mass killings, rapes, and murders and thefts. And for every act we have hundreds marching around with signs and with banners chanting and yelling and screaming, "Down with injustice!"

Many here protest against injustice. They point the finger at the bible believing Christian and say you ought to feel bad for believing in a God who could order the killing of children and they point the finger and get all riled up, but two minutes later they want to say it's all just a matter of opinion didn't ya know? Didn't ya know that there are no objective moral values and duties. Where are they???? Give me a list!!! Give me a list! As if during those two minutes they by some strange stroke of magic developed full blown amnesia and forgot all of their moral outrage and indignation.

Why ask for evidence, why ask for proofs, why ask for anything if after two minutes whatever it is you have seen and heard will grow wings and fly clear from your head?

A fish cannot live out of water because it was not meant to live out of water. Men cannot live as if morality is a mere social construct and relative to the subject because men were not meant to live as if it was.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Your definition of "objective" was indeed "as intended by a creator". That was actually the only reason why I accepted premise1, in the first place.
If you would like to work from a different definition, just let me know.

Reread #671

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No one here will say that it's quite alright to hold down a little girl and rape her just for the fun of it.

No one here will venture to say that even if they are so depraved as to really believe that.

They won't say it on here even if they believe it is quite alright because they will not that they be seen as the perverse, depraved, wretch that they really are.

Not only that, but no one here will venture to say that it would be quite alright if everyone in the world thought it was quite alright.

No one here will venture to say that. No one will.

One might, if they had some alcohol in them and felt courageous to attempt to dance around the issue and shift from one foot to the other. One might if they felt bold enough venture to call into question the simple terms I used and ask for me to define them. One might attempt to shift the burden onto some irrelevant topic to divert attention to the point being made.

But no one here will dare say that the badness and wrongness of raping a child for the fun of it is a matter of "perspective".

No one here will say that.

Which means that EVERYONE here believes in the existence of at least one moral value and duty that is grounded independently of the opinions of man, namely that genuine and true badness and wrongness of raping a child for the fun of it.

In the event that there is someone here who thinks it is good and right to rape a child for the fun of it or that such an act has no moral aspect at all, to such a one I have nothing to say.

I agree. However unanimous consensus does not prove anything. For something to be objectively wrong, it would be wrong despite unanimous consensus. Like if everyone thought the earth was flat, would that mean the earth is flat? No, because it is a fact that the Earth is round, everyone would be objectively wrong.

 

[Davian]

Is that a no then?

A no to what? I asked, what is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?