The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ed1wolf]

Yes! You can take the doubters to the moon and show them the footprints. This would prove man went to the moon. Care to try again?

Yes, and all doubters about God's objective morality will be brought before the throne of God after death and it will prove that His objective moral character and law exists.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Maybe.. but i think you need to go around the theology boards and just read the views of people over here on regards to what/who goes to heaven and hell. Many here have indirectly spelled out how morality is only "accepting christ" because good deeds are meaningless and you are still going to burn forever.
There are various things that people here have considered immoral/hell worthy such as tattoos, drinking beer, listening/watching random non-christian entertainment, etc etc. It gets rather hard to continue believing in an God who set objective moral laws when many followers here have the most immoral and lunatic like views of evil.

Whoever these people are, they are biblically illiterate. Christ said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments". Just accepting Christ will not get you into heaven, there has to be tangible evidence that you have accepted Him and that is obeying Him. The only one of the three things that you mention is actually mentioned in the bible and that MAY be a sin is tattoos. But most theologians believe that is part of the ceremonial law and not a moral law. I do think that it could be considered against God's ideal, since it is a rejection of how God made you but not necessarily a sin. Similar to polygamy.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Killing in self defense is not murder and is not condemned by the ten commandments. Murder is a planned killing of a innocent person. If someone is trying to kill you then they are not innocent and you are justfied in killing them.

ken: Murder is a legal term. In a country where everybody is innocent until PROVEN guilty, if the person trying to kill you has not yet been proven guilty, he is still innocent; so if you kill him, you have killed a legally innocent person

Not if it happens in the heat of the moment. It is considered self defense in most Western societies. Now if it happens over a lengthy period of time, of course, then it would be considered vigilantism and you would be right, you could be convicted of murder then.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And no, intention means nothing. Lenin and Stalin thought they were saving Russia when he ordered the murders of thousands. If you make morals circumstantial and based on intentions you can justify anything. That was Hitlers view of morality too. Only God's unchanging objective moral law is what is best for humanity and the most rational basis for morality.

ken: Hitler claimed to be doing God’s work by killing the Jews. The problem with God’s laws is he doesn’t speak for himself; he depends on flawed humans to speak for him so when mad man like Hitler speaks for God, some may consider Hitler’s claim as equal to Moses or others who have spoken for God

No, His written word is not flawed and it plainly speaks against what Hitler did. No one that has even a simple understanding of the bible would consider Hitler's claim as equal to Moses or Christ. Remember, the German establishment had abandoned belief in the Bible over 100 years before when they accepted Theological Liberalism and no longer believed in objective and absolute morality.

 

[Cis.jd]

Whoever these people are, they are biblically illiterate. Christ said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments". Just accepting Christ will not get you into heaven, there has to be tangible evidence that you have accepted Him and that is obeying Him. The only one of the three things that you mention is actually mentioned in the bible and that MAY be a sin is tattoos. But most theologians believe that is part of the ceremonial law and not a moral law. I do think that it could be considered against God's ideal, since it is a rejection of how God made you but not necessarily a sin. Similar to polygamy.

Whatever your views are, a lot of people have such horrible views here.

Please take the time to check this out. Go read post 46 and then go read post 52

This thread was made by someone who said this in the past:

If one of these people who starved, raped and shot Jews.. got down on their knees and accepted that what they did was wrong.. and asked Christ to save them.... then... they would be saved

Any human who denies Christ as the messiah..will not receive eternal life... No matter if they die in their sleep, died killing an evil Nazi, died helping Miss Daisy walk across the street. Or, died in the holocaust.

So in short a Nazi has a higher chance to go to heaven than the jews he murdered or a person who is mentally handicapped. These are such sick views.

Check this thread about males with long hair too.. just to have an idea as to how much is in that section.

This entire forum raises a lot of doubts to the "moral code" because just look at how immoral and unintelligent these views are.If you disagree then it's because "you don't know Christ" or "you have to pray to Yahweh to enlighten you".

I honestly think that maybe there should be a law in where people have to pass an IQ and personality test to own a Bible.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

How laws came to be, who created them, how they were created has nothing to do with them being objective. The fact that legal and illegal clams can be demonstrated as accurate, (by simply pointing to the law concerning the claim) is what makes the claim objective.

No. There are many laws people don’t agree on. For example; there are people who don’t agree on the laws concerning abortion. But even those who don’t agree with these laws, will agree it is legal and can point to the law that says abortion is legal.

Math does not require a consensus. If a mad man, or an ignorant, man wanted to insist 1+1=3, it wouldn’t change the fact that the sum is 2. That which is objective does not require human consensus; humans are wrong all the time.

No. I provided you the definition of “objective” Remember? And you did not disagree with the definition I provided. According to the definition I provided, the claim 1+1=2 is an objective claim because it can be demonstrated as true; it’s based on fact. Humans make claims all the time; some of these claims are objective, others are subjective. Now if you want to disagree with the definition I provided, that’s one thing; but to claim I never demonstrated how a human is capable of making objective claims; that is untrue.

I dunno! Would it still look blue?

No; I interpret blue with my sense of sight; not my experiences.

Your answer above does not address the questions I asked.

Then provide an example of a moral claim and explain why it is objective, without using God in your explanation.

“The fact that legal and illegal clams can be demonstrated as accurate, (by simply pointing to the law concerning the claim) is what makes the claim objective.”

I truly mean no disrespect when I write that you are clearly confused as to what objectivity equals in the sense it is debated regarding objective morality. I, of course, do not know your education level, however this sentence clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic.

You, apparently, confuse the meaning of the word objectivity in the sense that it is used as when a referee officiates a soccer match (judging without partiality) and the philosophical sense of the word where it is defined as being wholly independent of subjectivity.

Should that be true, it makes better sense to me as to why you are continually reverting to the anecdote 1+1=2 and why you seem to be missing the larger point. I truly hope that you will pursue knowledge on this, as arguing any topic, let alone the existence of objective morality, under a framework that is a based upon subjectivity is only an exercise in what the latest popular world view is vs. convention & tradition. It is akin to “reality TV.”


“No. There are many laws people don’t agree on. For example; there are people who don’t agree on the laws concerning abortion. But even those who don’t agree with these laws, will agree it is legal and can point to the law that says abortion is legal.”

This speaks nothing to objective morality or how objective morality can, or cannot, be known. Here too, you are operating under a definition of objectivity (soccer match) that is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not objective morality exists and if it does, how it can be known.


“Math does not require a consensus. If a mad man, or an ignorant, man wanted to insist 1+1=3, it wouldn’t change the fact that the sum is 2. That which is objective does not require human consensus; humans are wrong all the time.”

You are again demanding your beliefs to be equated with absolute truth. (Which is another example of the lack of consistency in your positions. You would likely excoriate a Christian, for example, if he or she were to demand that you hold their positions as God’s truth.) You, again, call 1+1=2 a “fact.” Yet you have not demonstrated this (your standards) by any means other than circular reasoning.

e.g.

Ken: 1+1=2 is true because 1+1=2.

If a dogmatic Christian were to argue:

The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true, you would be mocking that person. Yet, your “proof” is qualitatively the same. (another example)


If you were to be intellectually honest to the Socratic logic that you wish to esteem, the burden, (the same burden that you ask Christians regarding morality) that you bear is to demonstrate in an exhaustive way how it is absolutely true that 1= the opposite of non-1.

This, like my blue metaphor, is something that you, me and every other person cannot achieve because it all of us are equally finite and none of us can survey the entirety of the universe, and anything else that may exist, to conclusively state that we have:

1. Performed a completely exhaustive search of everything that is.
2. Interpreted the data correctly from that search
3. And, can upon the authority of (?) state that it is absolutely true that 1=the opposite of non-1

Perhaps you have heard the concept of post-modernism, which has a post-modern framework. In some scientific circles, post-positivism is still adhered to, but the post-modernists certainly are winning the "battle" in academia. Post Modernists argue that, while objectivity may indeed exist, it is unknowable and all of life, including science, is subjective. I suggest that you read and study more on these topics.


“Humans make claims all the time; some of these claims are objective, others are subjective”

What is the basis to determine which is “subjective” and which is “objective?” Can you cite anything outside of your faith statemens?


“I dunno! Would it still look blue?”

This demonstrates that you tacitly admit that you cannot objectively know blue. You bear the same burden for math rules. How, if you do not see every possible concept and construct for “1” can you then say that one is known correctly, that it is objectively 1? By admitting that you don’t know what blue would look like you demonstrate (your standard) that you are subjective. Being subjective, you experience your world; including math. You, thus far, have not demonstrated (your standard) how your experiences can conclude that “X” is objectively true.


“No; I interpret blue with my sense of sight; not my experiences.”

Again I say with respect, this is another example where I question your level of understanding on these topics; seeing blue is an experience.


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ed1wolf]

Look up the refutations of the use of the Anthropic Principle as evidence for God.

The only serious attempt at refutation of it is the multiverse theory, but that has no empirical evidence whatsoever and other significant problems.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I see you've opted to keep making an example of yourself. Very well.

In what way?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not everyone knows what the difference between micro and macro evolution is

efm: Including you.

Evidence?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Geocentricism used to be the majority view too.

efm: And was discredited by a body of critically robust evidence. Which you don't have.

Old earth Creation has pretty strong evidence also, and more is being discovered every month.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The cumulative effects coming into existence have never been empirically observed

efm: Speciation has been observed, as anyone with access to a search engine can see for themselves with a few seconds worth of research.

As I stated earlier I dont deny speciation, the problem is going up to higher phylogeny. No species has ever been observed changing into another Genus.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
and there is no evidence that time magically solves all the problems with it.

efm: You're confused. Magic is what you believe in. And you have yet to identify a single 'problem'.

More than 40 phyla appeared 543 mya within a time period of 3 my, which is evolutionarily impossible. There are also systematic gaps in the fossil record between genera. And there are many more problems. Such as the fact that natural selection tends toward stasis not divergence.

 

[Ken-1122]

I truly mean no disrespect when I write that you are clearly confused as to what objectivity equals in the sense it is debated regarding objective morality. I, of course, do not know your education level, however this sentence clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic.

You, apparently, confuse the meaning of the word objectivity in the sense that it is used as when a referee officiates a soccer match (judging without partiality) and the philosophical sense of the word where it is defined as being wholly independent of subjectivity.

Should that be true, it makes better sense to me as to why you are continually reverting to the anecdote 1+1=2 and why you seem to be missing the larger point. I truly hope that you will pursue knowledge on this, as arguing any topic, let alone the existence of objective morality, under a framework that is a based upon subjectivity is only an exercise in what the latest popular world view is vs. convention & tradition. It is akin to “reality TV.”

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do more than simply dismiss what I say and claim I am ignorant, or that I just don't know what I'm talking about, you need to articulate exactly what I said that was wrong. Your response along with your soccer analogy was equal to no response at all. Care to try again?

This speaks nothing to objective morality or how objective morality can, or cannot, be known. Here too, you are operating under a definition of objectivity (soccer match) that is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not objective morality exists and if it does, how it can be known.

I was addressing laws, not morality. Morality are personal judgments people make, laws are written rules people in power agree on. Personal judgments vary from person to person, written rules are the same no matter who looks or speak of them. If you disagree, you need to express WHY you disagree; not just claim I am ignorant if you wish to be taken seriously.

You are again demanding your beliefs to be equated with absolute truth. (Which is another example of the lack of consistency in your positions.

Did I say anything about my personal beliefs? No. I'm speaking about math, not my personal beliefs.

You would likely excoriate a Christian, for example, if he or she were to demand that you hold their positions as God’s truth.) You, again, call 1+1=2 a “fact.” Yet you have not demonstrated this (your standards) by any means other than circular reasoning.

e.g.
Ken: 1+1=2 is true because 1+1=2.
If a dogmatic Christian were to argue:
The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true, you would be mocking that person. Yet, your “proof” is qualitatively the same. (another example)

No; that sounds like something you might do. I would explain WHY I believe the bible is not true because it isn't good enough to simply dismiss a person, call them ignorant, or say they need to learn more. I would point out inconsistencies in the bible like where Jesus and God are supposedly one, yet when you look at how God says to treat your enemies like in Numbers 31:18, which is complete opposite in how Jesus said to treat your enemies in Luke 6:28. Or how according to the Bible Noah and his family built an ark nearly 500 feet long made of pure wood, and it still floated. (Any engineer will tell you this is impossible even today without some type of steel reinforcements) and they were able to fit all the animals on it, and it landed somewhere in Turkey, yet somehow all of those Kangaroos and Kola Bears were somehow able to get to Australia without leaving a trail. IOW I would point out the countless absurd stories and claims of the Bible as my reason for not believing it; i wouldn't just dismiss what they say.

If you were to be intellectually honest to the Socratic logic that you wish to esteem, the burden, (the same burden that you ask Christians regarding morality) that you bear is to demonstrate in an exhaustive way how it is absolutely true that 1= the opposite of non-1.

This, like my blue metaphor, is something that you, me and every other person cannot achieve because it all of us are equally finite and none of us can survey the entirety of the universe, and anything else that may exist, to conclusively state that we have:

1. Performed a completely exhaustive search of everything that is.
2. Interpreted the data correctly from that search
3. And, can upon the authority of (?) state that it is absolutely true that 1=the opposite of non-1

I go by the rules of Arithmetic. surveying the universe isn’t necessary. If the rules of Arithmetic aren’t good enough for you, perhaps you can tell me what type of proof are you looking for.

What is the basis to determine which is “subjective” and which is “objective?” Can you cite anything outside of your faith statemens?

I never use faith; I used an outside source (link) during our previous discussions defining objective vs subjective. Do you want more links? What type of evidence are you looking for?

This demonstrates that you tacitly admit that you cannot objectively know blue. You bear the same burden for math rules. How, if you do not see every possible concept and construct for “1” can you then say that one is known correctly, that it is objectively 1? By admitting that you don’t know what blue would look like you demonstrate (your standard) that you are subjective. Being subjective, you experience your world; including math. You, thus far, have not demonstrated (your standard) how your experiences can conclude that “X” is objectively true.

(Ken)
“No; I interpret blue with my sense of sight; not my experiences.”

Again I say with respect, this is another example where I question your level of understanding on these topics; seeing blue is an experience.

No; all I said was that I recognize blue (and all colors) through my sense of vision. All that other stuff is you taking my words and running in the wrong direction with them

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Again, it is extremely unlikely that those types of people sincerely repent if they even get the chance since in many cases they are either killed by the government or someone else and that is exactly what happened with Dahmer. People like that are usually not ashamed or feel guilty of what they have done. From what I have read Dahmer only "converted" because of pressure from his father not out any real sense of remorse or guilt. Most of his life and while he committed these acts he was an atheist and even said that since there was no God, he did not have to worry about getting punished in the afterlife.

He said that after he converted. Which you said wasn't a sincere conversion. How convenient that you get to pick and choose when his words are sincere, and when they aren't.

I don't deny that his father definitely was an opportunistic jackass, who exploited his son's conversion as a piece of propaganda for his creationist pseudo-science. That kind of behavior makes him extremely typical among professional creationists.

But that shouldn't concern you. Nor should the sincerity of his conversion concern you. What should concern you is whether it is possible at all, within your system of 'salvation', for someone like Dahmer to convert and go to heaven, while his victims suffer in hell forever. It is possible, and that is the problem you should be trying to address.

See above about Dahmer but there are also different levels in heaven. So a sincere deathbed conversion after a life of terrible sin, at the best would be the lowest levels of heaven.

No, we dont know that, some may have been only backslid for a time and sincerely felt guilty about their behavior and may have repented many times before of their sinful sexual behavior and therefore will be in heaven.

The internal critique is that under your moral system, behavior is irrelevant, and only belief is pertinent. As such, a serial rapist, torturer and murderer could go to heaven while an atheist philanthropist goes to hell.

Your response to this critique so far has been twofold.

First, you say it's unlikely. To that I say, so what? Suppose it happens only once in the entire history of humanity. The fact that it is possible at all is the critique, and this doesn't answer that critique.

Furthermore, one needn't appeal to such extremes to make the point. Any type of believer goes to a reward, and any type of atheist goes to punishment. They could have spent their lives acting in complete destruction, complete mediocrity, or complete service to wellbeing, but all that matters is what they believe at the point of death. Which illustrates the fact that behavior is utterly irrelevant to your moral philosophy. Only belief is pertinent.

Secondly, you assert there are different 'levels' of heaven and hell. That's barely a response at all. The idea that the rapist-tortured-murderer enjoys a lesser heaven while the atheist philanthropist suffers a lesser hell does nothing at all to address the gaping chasm between the primacy of belief and the irrelevancy of behavior in your moral philosophy. It's like trying to patch an amputated leg with a band-aid.

Overall, this is an extremely weak response.

No, we dont know that, some may have been only backslid for a time and sincerely felt guilty about their behavior and may have repented many times before of their sinful sexual behavior and therefore will be in heaven.

I don't have to 'know' that to make my point - if they didn't believe in Yahweh and his 'salvation', they went to an eternity in hell, after being raped, tortured, murdered and eaten by Dahmer. That is a necessary implication of the moral philosophy you are proposing. Saying 'maybe some of them didn't' is not answer to this.

In what way?

In what way are you making an example of yourself? How about the fact that you copied, word for word, without citation, from a fraud who made up a non-existent 'study' in support of their magic-addled, pseudo-scientific garbage. How about the fact that you continue to address cosmological concepts that you blatantly, manifestly have never studied in any meaningful fashion.

You're having a hard enough time defending your complete mess of a moral philosophy. Why you would also take on the added burden of trying to uphold completely indefensible and irrelevant pseudo-science is beyond me.

Old earth Creation has pretty strong evidence

'Creation', in the 'supernatural' sense, is a vacuous non-concept with no mechanism or epistemology to speak of, and zero explanatory power. You may as well say 'magic'. There is no such thing as 'evidence' for an act of magic.

As I stated earlier I dont deny speciation

You stated that the cumulative effect of evolution has never been observed. Speciation is a cumulative effect of evolution, and has been observed. So you were wrong.

If you wish, you are welcome to try and identify a chemical barrier that would allow for divergence at the species level, but not at any other level. You will fail.

RE: The Cambrian explosion, for the benefit of anyone reading along,

Why “Sudden Appearance” Is Not as It Appears
“Darwin’s Dilemma”: Was the Cambrian Explosion Too Fast For Evolution?

Another easily refuted creationist canard.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Please take the time to check this out. Go read post 46 and then go read post 52

You are right to be concerned about how these views come across to non-Christians. Talking in glowing terms about a 'perfectly just' and 'perfectly loving' god sending 'retards' to hell...that sort of thing is military-grade ammunition for reprobate blasphemers such as myself, and you better believe we will use it.

 

[Cis.jd]

You are right to be concerned about how these views come across to non-Christians. Talking in glowing terms about a 'perfectly just' and 'perfectly loving' god sending 'retards' to hell...that sort of thing is military-grade ammunition for reprobate blasphemers such as myself, and you better believe we will use it.

I did make a thread about my views of how the world should require an IQ test prior to owning a Bible. I would love to hear your thoughts (and other non-christians as well).

 

[Ken-1122]

Not if it happens in the heat of the moment. It is considered self defense in most Western societies. Now if it happens over a lengthy period of time, of course, then it would be considered vigilantism and you would be right, you could be convicted of murder then.

It will be considered self defense after the trial. Before the trial, while you are killing him, it would not yet be determined to be self defense.

No, His written word is not flawed and it plainly speaks against what Hitler did. No one that has even a simple understanding of the bible would consider Hitler's claim as equal to Moses or Christ. Remember, the German establishment had abandoned belief in the Bible over 100 years before when they accepted Theological Liberalism and no longer believed in objective and absolute morality.

The German establishment abandoned the Bible? Then why did they design their uniforms with religious inscriptions on them?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do more than simply dismiss what I say and claim I am ignorant, or that I just don't know what I'm talking about, you need to articulate exactly what I said that was wrong. Your response along with your soccer analogy was equal to no response at all. Care to try again?


I was addressing laws, not morality. Morality are personal judgments people make, laws are written rules people in power agree on. Personal judgments vary from person to person, written rules are the same no matter who looks or speak of them. If you disagree, you need to express WHY you disagree; not just claim I am ignorant if you wish to be taken seriously.



Did I say anything about my personal beliefs? No. I'm speaking about math, not my personal beliefs.




No; that sounds like something you might do. I would explain WHY I believe the bible is not true because it isn't good enough to simply dismiss a person, call them ignorant, or say they need to learn more. I would point out inconsistencies in the bible like where Jesus and God are supposedly one, yet when you look at how God says to treat your enemies like in Numbers 31:18, which is complete opposite in how Jesus said to treat your enemies in Luke 6:28. Or how according to the Bible Noah and his family built an ark nearly 500 feet long made of pure wood, and it still floated. (Any engineer will tell you this is impossible even today without some type of steel reinforcements) and they were able to fit all the animals on it, and it landed somewhere in Turkey, yet somehow all of those Kangaroos and Kola Bears were somehow able to get to Australia without leaving a trail. IOW I would point out the countless absurd stories and claims of the Bible as my reason for not believing it; i wouldn't just dismiss what they say.


I go by the rules of Arithmetic. surveying the universe isn’t necessary. If the rules of Arithmetic aren’t good enough for you, perhaps you can tell me what type of proof are you looking for.


I never use faith; I used an outside source (link) during our previous discussions defining objective vs subjective. Do you want more links? What type of evidence are you looking for?


No; all I said was that I recognize blue (and all colors) through my sense of vision. All that other stuff is you taking my words and running in the wrong direction with them

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do more than simply dismiss what I say and claim I am ignorant, or that I just don't know what I'm talking about, you need to articulate exactly what I said that was wrong. Your response along with your soccer analogy was equal to no response at all. Care to try again?

Without you understanding that you are a subjective sentient being and the derivative consequences thereof and acknowledging this, I can only conclude that your education level and understanding are in need of enhancement. Doesn’t this seem reasonable to you? However, my rebuttals to your positions are, and have been clear; you are a subjective being and that you bear the same burden, to demonstrate how you as a subjective being can know objectivity (epistemology.) You have not explained this other than to say, I paraphrase, I know objectivity because I know objectivity.

You have not demonstrated, not even seriously attempted, to demonstrate this. I still await a serious answer from you. Your position is to continually posit that humans agree, in some form, but you have not even come close to explaining how human agreement equals objectivity. Saying, over and over, that you follow the “rules of math” yet cannot demonstrate how they are the rules of math, is conclusive evidence that your level of understanding is in need of enhancement.

Until you can demonstrate how you know that the rules of math are indeed objective, (in the honest intellectual sense requires you to point to external frames of reference) your positions, since they remain unverified, can only be seen as faith statements. The very thing you seemingly chastise others for.


“Morality are personal judgments people make…”

Here too, you posit a statement that you hold to be “objective truth.” It is perfectly fine that you believe this, but this is nothing more than a faith statement until you demonstrate how it is objectively true. Also, you are expecting others to live by this faith statement of yours until debate continues. (Another example of the inconsistency in your positions.) Continually stating that “Morality are personal judgments people make” as a defense of your position without a frame of reference is entirely equal in quality to a person citing the Bible to verify the Bible’s authenticity.


Did I say anything about my personal beliefs? No. I'm speaking about math, not my personal beliefs.

No, you did not say anything about your personal beliefs, but this demonstrates the reasons why I’ve concluded that your understanding is in need of enhancement. In this statement you tacitly acknowledge that you do not understand that you are making faith statements because of the fact that you’ve left them unverified.


“I would explain WHY I believe the bible is not true…”

You, thus far, have not explained or demonstrated “why” your belief in “the rules of math” are objectively true. This statement is what you demand of others, but deny for yourself. (Inconsistency in your positions.)


I go by the rules of Arithmetic. surveying the universe isn’t necessary. If the rules of Arithmetic aren’t good enough for you, perhaps you can tell me what type of proof are you looking for.

How can you know that these are the rules of arithmetic, unless you exhaustively know that they are? On what grounds can you state that they apply to everything in the universe (objective truth)? What is your point of verification? You again are positing your positions to be sacrosanct. “I go by the rules of arithmetic” does not demonstrate that they are the rules of arithmetic. If I were to say “I go by the objective rules of morality” you would ask me to demonstrate how they are objective. If I were to respond by saying “the rules are in the Bible,” you would dismiss this. How, then, do you accept the same of yourself when I ask that you demonstrate how these are the rules of math and you posit the rules of math are the rules of math because 1+1=2. Citing the source of your belief as demonstrable proof is equally unsubstantiated as to my Bible analogy. You have not made a serious attempt to demonstrate the sources of the veracity of the “rules of math.” Rather, you’ve cited math to verify math.

To answer your question, the type of proof that I am looking for is of the nature that demonstrates the absolute detachment of math from subjectivity.


I never use faith; I used an outside source (link) during our previous discussions defining objective vs subjective. Do you want more links? What type of evidence are you looking for?

You are using faith because you cannot cite a source beyond your subjective experiences. Also, and please know that I mean this respectfully, citing Wikipedia is further evidence of why I’ve concluded that your understanding is in need of enhancement. Citing Wikipedia is by the fact itself (ipso facto) disallowed in the academic and intellectual worlds. Wikipedia, while it may or may not be useful as a common reference of almanac facts, does not engage the reader in the intellectual derivative meanings behind any given concept or construct.


No; all I said was that I recognize blue (and all colors) through my sense of vision. All that other stuff is you taking my words and running in the wrong direction with them

This is another example of the reasons that I’ve concluded that your understandings need enhancement. Seeing blue, or any other color, is an experience. This is because you are a subjective being. In the scientific understanding you seeing blue equals (the following is not intended to be exhaustive):

· Light entering your eye

· Your eye sending electrical impulses to your brain

· Your brain has chemical reactions (We title these chemical reactions “ideas” or "thoughts")

· You conclude that you are seeing “blue”

If science is correct in this how, then, is it demonstrably false that if another person, using the steps above, conclude that they are seeing red? Or, concluding they are seeing the Eiffel tower? How are your chemical reactions “true” and another’s “false?” Or, to put it another way, how are your chemical reactions “objective truth” and another’s “subjective truth?” These same principles apply to “the rules of math.” You need to demonstrate how your brain’s chemical reactions regarding “the rules of math” equal objective truth.

Regarding your point where you say “All that other stuff is you taking my words and running in the wrong direction with them” this is more evidence why I’ve questioned your understandings. In this statement it seems that you have not considered the derivative effects of your positions; the cause and effect, or what a certain point necessarily leads to.


Please know that I do mean all of this respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

(Ken said)
If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do more than simply dismiss what I say and claim I am ignorant, or that I just don't know what I'm talking about, you need to articulate exactly what I said that was wrong. Your response along with your soccer analogy was equal to no response at all. Care to try again?

(reply)
Without you understanding that you are a subjective sentient being and the derivative consequences thereof and acknowledging this, I can only conclude that your education level and understanding are in need of enhancement. Doesn’t this seem reasonable to you? However, my rebuttals to your positions are, and have been clear; you are a subjective being and that you bear the same burden, to demonstrate how you as a subjective being can know objectivity (epistemology.) You have not explained this other than to say, I paraphrase, I know objectivity because I know objectivity.

You have not demonstrated, not even seriously attempted, to demonstrate this. I still await a serious answer from you. Your position is to continually posit that humans agree, in some form, but you have not even come close to explaining how human agreement equals objectivity. Saying, over and over, that you follow the “rules of math” yet cannot demonstrate how they are the rules of math, is conclusive evidence that your level of understanding is in need of enhancement.

Until you can demonstrate how you know that the rules of math are indeed objective, (in the honest intellectual sense requires you to point to external frames of reference) your positions, since they remain unverified, can only be seen as faith statements. The very thing you seemingly chastise others for.

This link explains the rules of Arithmetic as I have been telling you. If this isn’t good enough for you, then it is up to you to explain what type of answer you are looking for
Basic Arithmetic: Rules & Concepts - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

(Ken said)
“Morality are personal judgments people make…”
(reply)
Here too, you posit a statement that you hold to be “objective truth.” It is perfectly fine that you believe this, but this is nothing more than a faith statement until you demonstrate how it is objectively true. Also, you are expecting others to live by this faith statement of yours until debate continues. (Another example of the inconsistency in your positions.) Continually stating that “Morality are personal judgments people make” as a defense of your position without a frame of reference is entirely equal in quality to a person citing the Bible to verify the Bible’s authenticity.

Then give me your definition of morality.

(Ken said)
I go by the rules of Arithmetic. surveying the universe isn’t necessary. If the rules of Arithmetic aren’t good enough for you, perhaps you can tell me what type of proof are you looking for.

(reply)
How can you know that these are the rules of arithmetic, unless you exhaustively know that they are? On what grounds can you state that they apply to everything in the universe (objective truth)? What is your point of verification? You again are positing your positions to be sacrosanct. “I go by the rules of arithmetic” does not demonstrate that they are the rules of arithmetic. If I were to say “I go by the objective rules of morality” you would ask me to demonstrate how they are objective. If I were to respond by saying “the rules are in the Bible,” you would dismiss this. How, then, do you accept the same of yourself when I ask that you demonstrate how these are the rules of math and you posit the rules of math are the rules of math because 1+1=2. Citing the source of your belief as demonstrable proof is equally unsubstantiated as to my Bible analogy. You have not made a serious attempt to demonstrate the sources of the veracity of the “rules of math.” Rather, you’ve cited math to verify math.

To answer your question, the type of proof that I am looking for is of the nature that demonstrates the absolute detachment of math from subjectivity.

If you disagree with the rules of Math I provided above, you need to give me your idea of the rules of math, and provide an example of 1+1 equaling anything other than 2 using your rules.

(Ken said)
I never use faith; I used an outside source (link) during our previous discussions defining objective vs subjective. Do you want more links? What type of evidence are you looking for?

(reply)
You are using faith because you cannot cite a source beyond your subjective experiences. Also, and please know that I mean this respectfully, citing Wikipedia is further evidence of why I’ve concluded that your understanding is in need of enhancement. Citing Wikipedia is by the fact itself (ipso facto) disallowed in the academic and intellectual worlds. Wikipedia, while it may or may not be useful as a common reference of almanac facts, does not engage the reader in the intellectual derivative meanings behind any given concept or construct.

If you disagree with the link I provided, you need to prove it wrong; otherwise your argument fails.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

This link explains the rules of Arithmetic as I have been telling you. If this isn’t good enough for you, then it is up to you to explain what type of answer you are looking for

Ken, I sincerely admire the strength of your faith. It seems that it is lost on you that you, again, with this link you are demonstrating the same blind faith that you find ridiculous. Let me explain.

· Ken sends link with that “explain the rules of Arithmetic.”
· This link is a writing by some person or people that claim to be an incorporation of the “rules of Arithmetic.”
· Ken believes that these writings are objectively true

How does that differ from:

· A Christian reads the Bible which claims to be objectively true
· The Christian believes that these writings are objectively true

Again and to use my “chemical reactions in the brain” analogy, how is one objectively true and the other objectively false? You, continuously, avoid this question. What are the reasons that you continuously avoid this question?


Then give me your definition of morality.

Again, my definition of morality is irrelevant. It is as equally meaningless as is yours. The question is how can subjective beings know objectivity. You have only made faith statements as to why your positions are objectively true.


If you disagree with the rules of Math I provided above, you need to give me your idea of the rules of math, and provide an example of 1+1 equaling anything other than 2 using your rules.

I may or may not agree with “the rules of math,” but this is meaningless until you demonstrate how a subjective beings can know objectivity. For example, we both could agree that the earth was flat. However, our beliefs do not make the world flat.


If you disagree with the link I provided, you need to prove it wrong; otherwise your argument fails.

Firstly, perhaps you are unfamiliar with what is expected in the academic and intellectual worlds, but you are the person that has made the positive statement: “The rules of math are objectively true.”

Therefore, the onus is on you to “prove” that it is true. However, as I have mentioned numerous times, you seem to expect others to accept your definitions and “truths,” which is evident in this statement. This is conclusive proof that you are inconsistent in your positions; you demand from others what you deny from yourself. I bear no onus as you suggest. The questions that I raise, in the accepted debate form, is your onus to refute.

Secondly, I haven’t attempted to “prove” your argument (link) either “right” or “wrong.” What I have argued is how can you, a subjective being know that it is objective truth. Something that you’ve failed to do. Perhaps that, too, was lost on you.

Finally, while it may have been a matter of convenience for you, I do ask that you answer the questions I’ve posed when I asked that you demonstrate how your “chemical reactions” are true…..

With respect,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

{Ken)This link explains the rules of Arithmetic as I have been telling you. If this isn’t good enough for you, then it is up to you to explain what type of answer you are looking for

(Reply)Ken, I sincerely admire the strength of your faith. It seems that it is lost on you that you, again, with this link you are demonstrating the same blind faith that you find ridiculous. Let me explain.

· Ken sends link with that “explain the rules of Arithmetic.”
· This link is a writing by some person or people that claim to be an incorporation of the “rules of Arithmetic.”
· Ken believes that these writings are objectively true

How does that differ from:

· A Christian reads the Bible which claims to be objectively true
· The Christian believes that these writings are objectively true

The bible is about actual events that happened in the real world; math is not. Math is about numbers, and numbers are not real. Numbers are symbolic tokens that can be used to represent things that are real, but numbers in and of themselves are not real. Math is a system humans created to calculate those non existent symbolic tokens that can be used to represent real things.
Care to try again?

Again and to use my “chemical reactions in the brain” analogy, how is one objectively true and the other objectively false? You, continuously, avoid this question. What are the reasons that you continuously avoid this question?

I don’t remember your chemical reactions in the brain analogy; would you mind repeating it?

(Ken) Then give me your definition of morality.

(Reply)
Again, my definition of morality is irrelevant. It is as equally meaningless as is yours. The question is how can subjective beings know objectivity. You have only made faith statements as to why your positions are objectively true.

My physical body is objective; so this idea that I am strictly a subjective being is false. Your definition of morality IS revenant because if you are going to object to the definition I provide, you need to explain why. If you consider morality meaningless, then there is nothing for us to discuss.

(Ken)If you disagree with the rules of Math I provided above, you need to give me your idea of the rules of math, and provide an example of 1+1 equaling anything other than 2 using your rules.

(reply)
I may or may not agree with “the rules of math,” but this is meaningless until you demonstrate how a subjective beings can know objectivity. For example, we both could agree that the earth was flat. However, our beliefs do not make the world flat.

What do you mean by “know objectivity”? Do you mean know it when I see it? Do you mean know the definition of the term? Or something else.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Ken, again I mean everything I say with respect, but there really is no reason for me to “try again” since you haven’t even come close to providing any sufficient answer; you are simply offering faith statements. Also, you appear to really be missing the point. You just posted:

· The bible is about actual events that happened in the real world
· Math is not.
· Math is about numbers, and numbers are not real.
· Numbers are symbolic tokens that can be used to represent things that are real, but numbers in and of themselves are not real.
· Math is a system humans created to calculate those non existent symbolic tokens that can be used to represent real things.
· My physical body is objective

All of these are statements, and any other statement that is akin to these, that you hold to be “objective truth,” I ask you to demonstrate how they are objective truth. And all you’ve been able to answer is, and again this is a paraphrase, they are true because they are true.


It is telling that you chose, (purposefully?) not to address my point that conclusively demonstrated that you hold to your beliefs via a blind faith. If you do not recall what I wrote, here it is again.

· Ken sends link with that “explain the rules of Arithmetic.”
· This link is a writing by some person or people that claim to be an incorporation of the “rules of Arithmetic.”
· Ken believes that these writings are objectively true

How does that differ from:

· A Christian reads the Bible which claims to be objectively true
· The Christian believes that these writings are objectively true


Also, if you truly somehow missed what I wrote in the previous post regarding chemical reactions, here it is again (and I’ve included your quote for context):

No; all I said was that I recognize blue (and all colors) through my sense of vision. All that other stuff is you taking my words and running in the wrong direction with them

This is another example of the reasons that I’ve concluded that your understandings need enhancement. Seeing blue, or any other color, is an experience. This is because you are a subjective being. In the scientific understanding you seeing blue equals (the following is not intended to be exhaustive):

· Light entering your eye
· Your eye sending electrical impulses to your brain
· Your brain has chemical reactions (We title these chemical reactions “ideas” or "thoughts")
· You conclude that you are seeing “blue”

If science is correct in this how, then, is it demonstrably false that if another person, using the steps above, conclude that they are seeing red? Or, concluding they are seeing the Eiffel tower? How are your chemical reactions “true” and another’s “false?” Or, to put it another way, how are your chemical reactions “objective truth” and another’s “subjective truth?” These same principles apply to “the rules of math.” You need to demonstrate how your brain’s chemical reactions regarding “the rules of math” equal objective truth.



My physical body is objective; so this idea that I am strictly a subjective being is false. Your definition of morality IS revenant because if you are going to object to the definition I provide, you need to explain why. If you consider morality meaningless, then there is nothing for us to discuss.

Here, again, are statements that you believe are objective truth. However, once again, you fail to demonstrate how they are true. Regarding your physical body, how do you know that you are not imagining that you have a body? (Yes, that is a serious question.) You have no answer other than to say; I see it, I feel it, etc., but these do not demonstrate how your “chemical reactions” are interpreting the data correctly. If you intend to debate any point you need to demonstrate the veracity of your position. All you can do is to say that I believe that I see my body, I believe that I touch my body, etc. You have not verified that your “chemical reactions” are a correct interpretation of the data that your brain has received.


What do you mean by “know objectivity”? Do you mean know it when I see it? Do you mean know the definition of the term? Or something else.


This is the most honest question that you’ve asked thus far. To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability. Therefore, to postulate any concept as objective truth can only be discounted as not a serious intellectual position, but rather a faith statement. Knowing objectivity necessarily means that one can point to, cite, etc. a frame of reference where “all creation” (for lack of a better term) is subjected to it.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken, again I mean everything I say with respect, but there really is no reason for me to “try again” since you haven’t even come close to providing any sufficient answer; you are simply offering faith statements. Also, you appear to really be missing the point. You just posted:

· The bible is about actual events that happened in the real world
· Math is not.
· Math is about numbers, and numbers are not real.
· Numbers are symbolic tokens that can be used to represent things that are real, but numbers in and of themselves are not real.
· Math is a system humans created to calculate those non existent symbolic tokens that can be used to represent real things.
· My physical body is objective

All of these are statements, and any other statement that is akin to these, that you hold to be “objective truth,” I ask you to demonstrate how they are objective truth. And all you’ve been able to answer is, and again this is a paraphrase, they are true because they are true.

The explanation I gave concerning the difference between bible claims and math is my opinion; I never claimed it was objective truth. If you disagree with my explanation we can discuss that. As far as my physical body having an objective reality, is this something you disagree with?

· Light entering your eye
· Your eye sending electrical impulses to your brain
· Your brain has chemical reactions (We title these chemical reactions “ideas” or "thoughts")
· You conclude that you are seeing “blue”

If science is correct in this how, then, is it demonstrably false that if another person, using the steps above, conclude that they are seeing red? Or, concluding they are seeing the Eiffel tower? How are your chemical reactions “true” and another’s “false?” Or, to put it another way, how are your chemical reactions “objective truth” and another’s “subjective truth?” These same principles apply to “the rules of math.” You need to demonstrate how your brain’s chemical reactions regarding “the rules of math” equal objective truth.

You seem to be asking how do I know what I see is real. If I see a blue car and another person looks at the car and thinks it is the Eiffel tower, how do I know I’m right and he is wrong, and you claim this applies to math?

I say it does not apply to math because blue cars are real, the Eiffel Tower is real, the method I would employ to distinguish the differences between a physical car and the Eiffel tower is different than what I would use to prove a person is using an agreed upon system incorrectly.
With the car and tower, I would use mine and his sense of sight and touch to prove him wrong, with math I would my only option would be to show him the rules of the system. If he refuses to accept the rules, then I must accept when it comes to math we will be speaking different languages.

Here, again, are statements that you believe are objective truth. However, once again, you fail to demonstrate how they are true. Regarding your physical body, how do you know that you are not imagining that you have a body? (Yes, that is a serious question.) You have no answer other than to say; I see it, I feel it, etc., but these do not demonstrate how your “chemical reactions” are interpreting the data correctly. If you intend to debate any point you need to demonstrate the veracity of your position. All you can do is to say that I believe that I see my body, I believe that I touch my body, etc. You have not verified that your “chemical reactions” are a correct interpretation of the data that your brain has received.

So you ask how do I know my body exists? To know means; To perceive or understand as factual or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
the definition of know
In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong. When I say I know my body is physical, I’m saying I perceive clearly and with certainty that my body has a physical existence. Why am I so certain? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps this isn’t enough to convince you, but it is enough to convince me; and convincing you is not necessary for me to have knowledge.

This is the most honest question that you’ve asked thus far. To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability.

You keep claiming we are subjective beings unable to recognize that which is objective, but you have yet to prove this as true. How do you know we are subjective beings that are unable to recognize that which is objective?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Actually language is the perfect example, so-called "primitive languages" are more complex than modern languages. How is that possible according to evolution?

efm: Firstly, that's not true. Languages that have existed longer can be more complex than younger ones, but not necessarily, and not in their classic forms.

Evidence?

efm: Secondly, evolution does not necessitate things becoming more 'complex'.

Not on the side branches but the overall trunk does, otherwise humans would have not come into existence. The human brain is the most complex thing known in the universe.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, according to Noam Chomsky the great linguist expert says that our brains have a built in grammar that all languages share, providing evidence that there once was a single original language just as the Bible teaches.

efm: The word for that is common ancestry. That proves my point about gradualism, not yours.

It can also mean a single common designer.

efm: You will find some linguists who believe in a single common point of origin, some who do not, who will point to the fact that there are living languages today with no known relative languages.

Well the ones that do believe in a single point of origin believe it with evidence, so that proves my point that there IS evidence for the creationist position. That is all I was claiming, ie that there IS evidence for the creationist view of language.

efm: Basque, Ainu, Sumerian and (possibly) Korean, for example, which suggests language may have developed independently among disparate groups. To the point, none of them use the fairy tale of the Tower of Babel as a literal basis of understanding.

For what it's worth, I've met Professor Chomsky a few times. He is absolutely not on your side, with regard to anything pertinent to this thread. I wouldn't invoke him if I were you.

Of course, an atheistic evolutionist is not going to interpret the data to support creation. My point was the his data itself not the interpretation of it.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I have explained to Ken, the theory of macroevolution is unfalsifiable.

efm: When is your Nobel prize speech?

They would never award a creationist the prize.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So there is always an evolutionary explanation for any data discovered. I am in the process of trying to find out the original study also.

efm: The math department at which the 'study' supposedly took place, can't find it. You will fail.

They may be looking at just the interpretation and theory about the data, but not the data itself so they may overlook it. They are looking at it thru the lenses of Darwinian evolution. It can blind you to seeing other things, I know, I used to be an evolutionist myself.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Evidence?

You first. Provide evidence for your assertion that ancient languages are more 'complex'.

While you're at it, provide a relevant definition of 'complex'.

Then you can get around to providing evidence of 'creation', with regard to language, and a coherent, workable mechanism of 'creation'.

Never once in history has an established natural explanation of anything been overturned by a 'supernatural' explanation - it has always been the other way - but let's see if you can be the first to do so. Let's see if you know something that people like Noam Chomsky and his contemporaries somehow missed.