Where does morality come from?

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, that is why I am responding to you and challenging your claims. I am not making bald assertions, but giving logical reasons why the Trinity is not a rational concept. It is accepted only on faith.

There are a great number of matters in life we accept on faith. The entire school system in any nation on earth is built on accepting by faith what is taught. I can ask you a tone of questions that you will agree to which you or we both have accepted on faith because we have never been there nor tested the teaching as we cannot do so. So you need to see that most of what we know we have accepted on faith. There is not enough time and resources to test everything ourselves.

 

[Caliban]

There are a great number of matters in life we accept on faith. The entire school system in any nation on earth is built on accepting by faith what is taught. I can ask you a tone of questions that you will agree to which you or we both have accepted on faith because we have never been there nor tested the teaching as we cannot do so. So you need to see that most of what we know we have accepted on faith. There is not enough time and resources to test everything ourselves.

I disagree with your use of the word faith here. It carries religious implications. I don't have faith in anything I was taught in school. I am also a teacher and always tell my student to never take my word as authority, rather I provide them evidence and ask them to consider it. You are correct that we do not have time to investigate every claim, but our choices are not to accept the claim or fully investigate it. We can also say I don't know or we can hold out opinions tentatively and be open to revising our ideas. Taking anything on faith is a very bad idea.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah. How did you know? Was it the "L" on my forehead that gave it away?

I know I win all our fights, Philo, but there's no need to go writing a thick black 'L' on your forehead like some Scarlet Letter of shame!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Okay, show me. Using the language of logic, explain to me how the concept of the Trinity is logical. I will pay close attention.

First, on one point you are right and that is I accepted on faith the explanation that the nature of God is best explained in using a three person description. That was true in the beginning. This is true in any educational endeavor in the whole of human education. We accept what teachers say on faith. On most matters it remains a faith. On some we move on into testing this information ourselvees, for some who do think about what they think at all.

But with the years, I have come to understand God from experience. Some of this I can share but there is a fundamental problem in your thinking that you will need to adjust. You are not alone. A lot of Christians tend to think this way as well and it is this. God is not a concept or a theory an explanation. God is a living being. So we are talking explaining or coming to understand a living being. This is different than a theory that needs to conform to the rules of logic. You might as well be asking me to explain the body my husband has in terms of logical constructs. While there is logic as to why his body works as it does, explaining the nature of a living being is not the same as a concept.

A living being needs to have a nature that enables it to perform all the functions it needs to perform. A theory does not. A theory can logically explain the functions living cells or beings perfom in that we read the theory, observe the living form, and see that what the theory proposes matches real life. The logic consists in the matching of the words to what is actually observed to be true and if all goes well, fits perfectly and the living subject performs its function prefectly. I assume you are following this. In not, just ask me and I will give you examples. I studied and work in science so I have a lot of examples from that field.

So if we move onto the nature of God, we are talking trying to understand how a living being operates. This I do with the personal permission of said living Being, by the way. His nature (different than His character) is how he is and interacts with man whom He made to interact with Him. In this goal, He is able to be with us as He is of a spiritual nature. That is, He is not limited to being within a physical body as we are. This enables Him to be with us and with many, or in fact all, men should those men want Him to be with them. While He is with men, He is also in a dimension that requires His presence in a kingly way. That is, He is ruling and judging being the Judge of all the Earth and so it performing that office at the same time. This gives us a short description of two elements or persons of his being defined by function.

There is the third which is the more troubling for most. In order to satisfy justice and mercy, He also submitted to being born as a man in order to save the other men (includes women) from the destiny they had deserved which would mean no relationship with Him at all. All the while He was in the body as a man, he was still the Judge of all the Earth and still moving by His spirit on said earth. So you see the three functions of God which we call triunity....unity in diversity.

This is the closest one can come in using logic to explain the nature of a living being as far as I can see. Again, if I were to explain to you the logical nature of the human body (studied medicine) I can do so in terms of physiology and its logical functions that allow us to perform all the functions necessary for life ideally (meaning not ill) but it will not be the logical constructs of a theoretical argument that has no counterpart nor way to measure its validity in real life.

I suspect that you will not accept the above as I have never met an atheist yet who was able to see God as a living Being and not merely an idea they want to discuss. There are a number of theologians, if not most of them, who suffer from the same limitation. And as I said, a number of Christians also feel this way about God except when it comes to Him answering their prayers. They discuss Him as though He were an idea about whom they can make up anything that suits them. Trying to find out what suits said living Being does not occur to them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, show me. Using the language of logic, explain to me how the concept of the Trinity is logical. I will pay close attention.

I'll be honest, I've never looked into the whole Trinity bit all that closely, but now you've piqued my curiosity. Let me ask this, as I assume you've looked into more than I have. Is "God" one person? Usually when we say "God" don't we really colloquially mean "The Father"? So Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are each one person, but when they say that those three people are one God, are they saying that "God" (in that context) is one person? I've heard the term "Godhead" thrown around to mean the one God that is three people. Is it illogical for that one God to be a group of people? Like, those three people are one group. Those three people are one committee. Those aren't illogical even though they're three-in-one.

I'm not really making an attempt at a real argument here. I'm just spitballing stuff that I come up with without any research whatsoever because I'm bored.

 

[Caliban]

First, on one point you are right and that is I accepted on faith the explanation that the nature of God is best explained in using a three person description. That was true in the beginning. This is true in any educational endeavor in the whole of human education. We accept what teachers say on faith. On most matters it remains a faith. On some we move on into testing this information ourselvees, for some who do think about what they think at all.

But with the years, I have come to understand God from experience. Some of this I can share but there is a fundamental problem in your thinking that you will need to adjust. You are not alone. A lot of Christians tend to think this way as well and it is this. God is not a concept or a theory an explanation. God is a living being. So we are talking explaining or coming to understand a living being. This is different than a theory that needs to conform to the rules of logic. You might as well be asking me to explain the body my husband has in terms of logical constructs. While there is logic as to why his body works as it does, explaining the nature of a living being is not the same as a concept.

A living being needs to have a nature that enables it to perform all the functions it needs to perform. A theory does not. A theory can logically explain the functions living cells or beings perfom in that we read the theory, observe the living form, and see that what the theory proposes matches real life. The logic consists in the matching of the words to what is actually observed to be true and if all goes well, fits perfectly and the living subject performs its function prefectly. I assume you are following this. In not, just ask me and I will give you examples. I studied and work in science so I have a lot of examples from that field.

So if we move onto the nature of God, we are talking trying to understand how a living being operates. This I do with the personal permission of said living Being, by the way. His nature (different than His character) is how he is and interacts with man whom He made to interact with Him. In this goal, He is able to be with us as He is of a spiritual nature. That is, He is not limited to being within a physical body as we are. This enables Him to be with us and with many, or in fact all, men should those men want Him to be with them. While He is with men, He is also in a dimension that requires His presence in a kingly way. That is, He is ruling and judging being the Judge of all the Earth and so it performing that office at the same time. This gives us a short description of two elements or persons of his being defined by function.

There is the third which is the more troubling for most. In order to satisfy justice and mercy, He also submitted to being born as a man in order to save the other men (includes women) from the destiny they had deserved which would mean no relationship with Him at all. All the while He was in the body as a man, he was still the Judge of all the Earth and still moving by His spirit on said earth. So you see the three functions of God which we call triunity....unity in diversity.

This is the closest one can come in using logic to explain the nature of a living being as far as I can see. Again, if I were to explain to you the logical nature of the human body (studied medicine) I can do so in terms of physiology and its logical functions that allow us to perform all the functions necessary for life ideally (meaning not ill) but it will not be the logical constructs of a theoretical argument that has no counterpart nor way to measure its validity in real life.

I suspect that you will not accept the above as I have never met an atheist yet who was able to see God as a living Being and not merely an idea they want to discuss. There are a number of theologians, if not most of them, who suffer from the same limitation. And as I said, a number of Christians also feel this way about God except when it comes to Him answering their prayers. They discuss Him as though He were an idea about whom they can make up anything that suits them. Trying to find out what suits said living Being does not occur to them.

I appreciate you passionate desire to explain your thoughts, I just don't share them. You mention the necessity of faith and you emphasized personal experience. I consider those two things to be the worst way a person can investigate the world.

Faith is the acceptance of a proposition or idea without justified knowledge that it is true. When you wrote that "we accept what teacher say on faith," I cringed. People may do that, but they will not be receiving an education, they will not be thinking for themselves, they will be indoctrinated and blindly following the propositions of an authority figure. That's not reasonable. No one should ever take a teachers word for it; they should use their brains to investigate the truth of a proposition. That is real education.

As for personal experience, I have no access to your experiences, nor can I test them. I also cannot believe extraordinary claims because you said so. I don't accept the testimony of those claiming to be abducted by aliens, those that claim crystals healed them, or a host of supernatural claims. Of course, you may also be wrong about you experience. I think the alien abduction stories come from sincere people who believe it happened to them, I just don't believe it. There is no real evidence it is true.

You say that you have never meet an atheist who was able to see God. Me either. But then, I don't think anyone has ever seen a god. I believe you think you have; I'm sure you are a kind and sincere person, I just don't believe it because there is no evidence. Faith and personal testimony is not evidence.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I disagree with your use of the word faith here. It carries religious implications. I don't have faith in anything I was taught in school. I am also a teacher and always tell my student to never take my word as authority, rather I provide them evidence and ask them to consider it. You are correct that we do not have time to investigate every claim, but our choices are not to accept the claim or fully investigate it. We can also say I don't know or we can hold out opinions tentatively and be open to revising our ideas. Taking anything on faith is a very bad idea.

You might not like the word for personal reasons but it does not change the truth that when teachers impart what they know to students, the students have to actually believe what they say or they cannot learn. It is faith pure. They cannot know what they are being taught is true but believe it. If they knew it, they would take a class where the teacher knows something they don't know. You not liking the word is a personal prejudice.

I seriously doubt you provide evidence for every single thing you teach. You would not get very far. And some matters there is no evidence that does not cost a lot of money. You want your students to believe the pictures you show them of borneo are real? You need to fly to there with them. You want to teach students about the anatomy of a human being? You need to go to where they have cadavers and look at the parts you are teaching to see for themselves that they are really as you say. No teacher can teach anything if they insist their students never believe a thing they say.

By the way, does not believing what you say include you telling them not to believe what you tell them when you tell them not to believe what you say?

 

[Caliban]

You might not like the word for personal reasons but it does not change the truth that when teachers impart what they know to students, the students have to actually believe what they say or they cannot learn. It is faith pure. They cannot know what they are being taught is true but believe it. If they knew it, they would take a class where the teacher knows something they don't know. You not liking the word is a personal prejudice.

I seriously doubt you provide evidence for every single thing you teach. You would not get very far. And some matters there is no evidence that does not cost a lot of money. You want your students to believe the pictures you show them of borneo are real? You need to fly to there with them. You want to teach students about the anatomy of a human being? You need to go to where they have cadavers and look at the parts you are teaching to see for themselves that they are really as you say. No teacher can teach anything if they insist their students never believer a thing they say.

By the way, does not believing what you say include you telling them not to believe what you tell them when you tell them not to believe what you say?

That is not faith. There are reasons why I teach my students how and where to use a comma. It has rules; you can look it up. Faith is something different; it's belief without evidence.
"...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

 

[Kylie]

So are you saying that there is no one best thing to do in this situation? Then if there is only a subjective moral position for this situation what is the right thing to do.

Are you seriously asking me what the objectively best thing to do is? When I've been going on that it's all subjective?



In the trolley problem, I would probably switch tracks so that one person dies instead of five. Most people would tend to do the same, based on experiments done regarding this.

But don't tell me that proves it is objective, because we've already covered how many people can reach the same subjective conclusion.

The problem is you keep thinking ABsolute morality is objective morality. So when you change scenarios you think if the objective moral changes it shows that morality is subjective. But that's not how objective morality works. Each time the situation changes so does the objective moral. The important differences between subjective morality are that in each different situation there is always one best thing to do regardless of subjective morality.

The difference is that you can get two people who have different ideas about the same situation. Absolute morality doesn't come into it in that case, and yet two people will have different ideas! You objective morality idea can't explain that!

In other words, under subjective morality, if it's a single person around 35 years old and the other 5 are the same age then its OK to take the single person out.
But if its a single child and a bunch of oldies we can commit mass murder. What if its a single child and 20 oldies. Should we take the 20 old dears out? I don't know why you are worried about which action is correct as there is no correct moral action under subjective morality.

Why do you think that just because it's a subjective thing that I'd find it an easy choice to make?

The 3rd option I gave you doesn't apply to the 2nd option of Euthyphro's dilemma that "something is good because God wills it". That's because God is not willing anything (any good). But rather it is God's own nature that is good that determines what is good. It's like a water well of good and all that flows out of it is good and no one has to will anything. God's commands which constitute our moral duties are based upon his moral nature so God commands naturally flow from this and God is not commanding anything.

Like most religious explanations, I find this doesn't really make much sense.

Today God does not command anyone to kill. That was back in the Old Testament times for God's people only in carry out God's plan. I cannot pretend to be something I am not or able to even contemplate. God was communicating directly with his prophets, not like today as this was before Jesus.

Once again you just avoid answering the question.

How does this violate objective morality?

You said that it was always wrong to take an action that would kill someone.

You also said that you'd take action to kill a person in the trolley problem.

So your saying determining if a wrong has been done in the first place is taking a subjective position. Isn't that why they have an inquiry to determine if a wrong has been done and that someone is responsible and how culpable they are.

Figuring out if someone has done a particular thing isn't subjective. Either they did it or they didn't.

So your saying people are not allowed to try and save someone.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you are making excuses to get around the fact that I've shown that the trolley problem applies to real life, despite your complaining that it doesn't.

No, I am saying the "Trolley thought experiment" is an unreal situation. I provided the evidence for this. The difference with the real-world example of the runaway carriages is that the people involved were allowed to try everything to avoid harm. It was in the trying that made it real and allow human agency.

Again, you are just trying to squirm out of it.

So if someone says in my view 2 + 2 = 5 and another person says no objectively 2 + 2 = 4 isn't that having both a subjective and objective at the same time. Remember subjective views are just personal opinions so people can claim whatever they like IE a person's subjective view that the earth is flat. An objective view is the earth is round. The same with morals.

No. No one is capable of actually creating subjective mathematics. The concept is meaningless.

God's moral laws are based on Christ's teachings. All Christ-ians know this. Christ's teachings are clearly seen in the New Testament.

It does not change the fact that there are Christians who disagree on moral issues.

No, I am forced to more complicated determinations because you are presenting more and more complicated situations.

The trolley problem is perfectly simple. You only have to resort to complicated solutions because that's the only way you can make subjective morals look objective.

The logical argument I presented still stands. You have to come up with a defeater of that logical argument that you haven't done yet. That's how arguments are made. A person makes a logical argument then you have to defeat that argument.

You haven't presented a logical argument yet.

But while you are coming up with the defeater I will give you an objective moral that you would also have to show is not objective remembering that objective morals are always right regardless of subjective morality. So it is objectively wrong to sexually abuse a child for fun. You now need to show how sexually abusing a child for fun is a good moral.

Bad guy threatens to kill 1000 people unless the kid is abused.

Sure, it's approaching cartoonish supervillainy, but there's nothing there that's actually impossible.

But that doesn't mean that there can be a possible objective moral that can be found or determined.

So you can find or determine an objective morality in a situation in which no objective morality can be shown?

I'm not going to keep playing this game of a never-ending presentation of moral situations. They don't prove anything.

Once again, excuses excuses.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I appreciate you passionate desire to explain your thoughts, I just don't share them. You mention the necessity of faith and you emphasized personal experience. I consider those two things to be the worst way a person can investigate the world.

Ah, it is clear you do not work in science nor were trained in science. The idea of experiments is faith and personal experience. You have to believe in your theory enough to get funds to finance experiments where you personally observe the testing of your theory. Science runs on faith and personal experience we call experiments.

Faith is the acceptance of a proposition or idea without justified knowledge that it is true.

Wrong. Blind faith is. Most faith we exercise is built on observantion and evidence.

When you wrote that "we accept what teacher say on faith," I cringed. People may do that, but they will not be receiving an education, they will not be thinking for themselves, they will be indoctrinated and blindly following the propositions of an authority figure. That's not reasonable. No one should ever take a teachers word for it; they should use their brains to investigate the truth of a proposition. That is real education.

Even the idea that we should not accept your word that we should not accept your word? That, dear teacher, is you exercising your authority for them to trust you not to trust you. No one has the time nor money to investigate everything they hear. No one. This is an illogical demand you make. It would render the world more ignorant and distrustful than it is now. We could nothing anyone says and would make a lot of mistakes thereby.

As for personal experience, I have no access to your experiences, nor can I test them. I also cannot believe extraordinary claims because you said so. I don't accept the testimony of those claiming to be abducted by aliens, those that claim crystals healed them, or a host of supernatural claims. Of course, you may also be wrong about you experience. I think the alien abduction stories come from sincere people who believe it happened to them, I just don't believe it. There is no real evidence it is true.

That you do not see the difference between God being Spirit and being abducted by aliens tells me that you do not understand what we are talking about. NO one dies for believing in aliens. No one. THere are millions of good men and women who died out of love for Christ. And they made the world, your world, a much better place. That you do not see the difference means it will be tough going. Some fundamental matters need to be clear in your head and I see that they are not.

Do you never learn from other people's experiences? Even though you have no acces to them? Do you insist that you have to make all the mistakes yourself? ISn't life more difficult that way? I learn tons from other people's experiences and have avoided a lot of mistakes even though I had no access to their experiences.

You say that you have never meet an atheist who was able to see God. Me either. But then, I don't think anyone has ever seen a god. I believe you think you have; I'm sure you are a kind and sincere person, I just don't believe it because there is no evidence. Faith and personal testimony is not evidence.

Where did I say that? You do not believe because you refuse the evidence offered you. YOu are a very intelligent person, but believing in God is not like believing men landed on the moon or not. Believing in God results in knowing that there is a judgement coming for the deeds of your life as there is life after death. Atheism relives you of that weight. Believing in God is not for free. Atheism is also not for free but the price is paid much later.

I went back to see where I wrote what you claimed I did and was quite surprised to find that you had edited my sentence to make it say something I did not say. This is dishonest of you, but while I am sad you are such a person, I am not surprised. The atheists I have talked to on these matters are not usually very honest. This is what I actually wrote and you edited, "I suspect that you will not accept the above as I have never met an atheist yet who was able to see God as a living Being and not merely an idea they want to discuss."

I tell you this to help you see that in discussing God, your tendency is not to be as honest as you think you are being.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is not faith. There are reasons why I teach my students how and where to use a comma. It has rules; you can look it up. Faith is something different; it's belief without evidence.
"...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Bull !!!

 

[Caliban]

I'll be honest, I've never looked into the whole Trinity bit all that closely, but now you've peeked my curiosity. Let me ask this, as I assume you've looked into more than I have. Is "God" one person? Usually when we say "God" don't we really colloquially mean "The Father"? So Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are each one person, but when they say that those three people are one God, are they saying that "God" (in that context) is one person? I've heard the term "Godhead" thrown around to mean the one God that is three people. Is it illogical for that one God to be a group of people? Like, those three people are one group. Those three people are one committee. Those aren't illogical even though they're three-in-one.

I'm not really making an attempt at a real argument here. I'm just spitballing stuff that I come up with without any research whatsoever because I'm bored.

As a logical construction, the Trinity fails. The Christian claim is that God , Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one, yet distinct in there persons. This is not logically possible; most theologians default to saying that the Bible reveals the truth of the Triune nature go God, and we must take it on faith--it is a mystery.

I might say that I am a father and I am a son. But I am not these things at the same time and in the same relationship.

The Trinitarian concept involves the father also being the son. Theologians have fought viciously to insist that it is heretical to separate these characteristics. They insist God is truly monotheistic and yet distinctly also Jesus (God's son) and the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is true; but it breaks the laws of logic if it is.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That is not faith. There are reasons why I teach my students how and where to use a comma. It has rules; you can look it up. Faith is something different; it's belief without evidence.
"...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

If the rules of grammar change on you, you will be wrong on what you teach if you do not change. Rules of grammar are not written in concrete.

When you see the rules of grammar that are current, you do not need to believe them. Do you ask the students to look up all the rules all the time not trusting you?

IYour friend asks to borrow 500 bucks and asks you to trust him to pay you back. You do not see the money YET but you BELIEVE he will and do as he requests. You trust him based on the evidence you have seen of his trustworthiness or not. That faith does not yet see the object does not mean there is no REASON for it.

 

[Caliban]

Ah, it is clear you do not work in science nor were trained in science. The idea of experiments is faith and personal experience. You have to believe in your theory enough to get funds to finance experiments where you personally observe the testing of your theory. Science runs on faith and personal experience we call experiments.
Wrong. Blind faith is. Most faith we exercise is built on observantion and evidence.
Even the idea that we should not accept your word that we should not accept your word? That, dear teacher, is you exercising your authority for them to trust you not to trust you. No one has the time nor money to investigate everything they hear. No one. This is an illogical demand you make. It would render the world more ignorant and distrustful than it is now. We could nothing anyone says and would make a lot of mistakes thereby.
That you do not see the difference between God being Spirit and being abducted by aliens tells me that you do not understand what we are talking about. NO one dies for believing in aliens. No one. THere are millions of good men and women who died out of love for Christ. And they made the world, your world, a much better place. That you do not see the difference means it will be tough going. Some fundamental matters need to be clear in your head and I see that they are not.

Do you never learn from other people's experiences? Even though you have no acces to them? Do you insist that you have to make all the mistakes yourself? ISn't life more difficult that way? I learn tons from other people's experiences and have avoided a lot of mistakes even though I had no access to their experiences.
Where did I say that? You do not believe because you refuse the evidence offered you. YOu are a very intelligent person, but believing in God is not like believing men landed on the moon or not. Believing in God results in knowing that there is a judgement coming for the deeds of your life as there is life after death. Atheism relives you of that weight. Believing in God is not for free. Atheism is also not for free but the price is paid much later.

I went back to see where I wrote what you claimed I did and was quite surprised to find that you had edited my sentence to make it say something I did not say. This is dishonest of you, but while I am sad you are such a person, I am not surprised. The atheists I have talked to on these matters are not usually very honest. This is what I actually wrote and you edited, "I suspect that you will not accept the above as I have never met an atheist yet who was able to see God as a living Being and not merely an idea they want to discuss."

I tell you this to help you see that in discussing God, your tendency is not to be as honest as you think you are being.

I do understand the scientific method, I obtained a graduate degree that involved performing research. You get the scientific method wrong when you write, "The idea of experiments is faith and personal experience." You would never pass a basic science class if you wrote that on your final.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a logical construction, the Trinity fails. The Christian claim is that God , Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one, yet distinct in there persons. This is not logically possible; most theologians default to saying that the Bible reveals the truth of the Triune nature go God, and we must take it on faith--it is a mystery.

I might say that I am a father and I am a son. But I am not these things at the same time and in the same relationship.

The Trinitarian concept involves the father also being the son. Theologians have fought viciously to insist that it is heretical to separate these characteristics. They insist God is truly monotheistic and yet distinctly also Jesus (God's son) and the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is true; but it breaks the laws of logic if it is.
View attachment 276470

Time to expand your horizons, R.Miller. Get outside of the box you've allowed your mind to be shut up in.

 

[Caliban]

Time to expand your horizons, R.Miller. Get outside of the box you've allowed your mind to be shut up in.

Drop the insults--it's unbecoming.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I do understand the scientific method, I obtained a graduate degree that involved performing research. You get the scientific method wrong when you write, "The idea of experiments is faith and personal experience." You would never pass a basic science class if you wrote that on your final.

We are not talking about the prejudice of teachers against the very words "faith" and "experience" but the fact is that a scientist needs to have some degree of faith in their proposition for a project or they will never get funding. If the matter is one of fact, there is no need for research. If it is already known, there is no need for research. A scientist has to have faith in order to do science. That you do not like the word and would fail a student who even used it does not change the necessity for a science to believe what they are doing will increase understanding.

Personal experience is really what experiments are about although often not that personal. In some branches subjects are actually observed which is personal experience pure. So again, that you do not like the words does not change the fact that these matters exist in the scientists working in their fields.

 

[Caliban]

We are not talking about the prejudice of teachers against the very words "faith" and "experience" but the fact is that a scientist needs to have some degree of faith in their proposition for a project or they will never get funding. If the matter is one of fact, there is no need for research. If it is already known, there is no need for research. A scientist has to have faith in order to do science. That you do not like the word and would fail a student who even used it does not change the necessity for a science to believe what they are doing will increase understanding.

Personal experience is really what experiments are about although often not that personal. In some branches subjects are actually observed which is personal experience pure. So again, that you do not like the words does not change the fact that these matters exist in the scientists working in their fields.

I would fail a student for using the word faith? Are you reading the words you are writing?

I am going to stop communicating with you because it is going nowhere and your attitude has soured.
It was good in the beginning, but it ran aground somewhere. Good evening.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

As a logical construction, the Trinity fails. The Christian claim is that God , Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one, yet distinct in there persons. This is not logically possible; most theologians default to saying that the Bible reveals the truth of the Triune nature go God, and we must take it on faith--it is a mystery.

I might say that I am a father and I am a son. But I am not these things at the same time and in the same relationship.

If you have more than one kid and more than one son, aren’t you them the same in more than one relationship?

The Trinitarian concept involves the father also being the son. Theologians have fought viciously to insist that it is heretical to separate these characteristics. They insist God is truly monotheistic and yet distinctly also Jesus (God's son) and the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is true; but it breaks the laws of logic if it is.
View attachment 276470

Dont talk to theologians. Talk to those who have had God explain Himself to instead.

 

[Ken-1122]

Look at this sentence: "I believe I am right". The word "right" refers back to the word "I". I'm talking about how the English language works grammatically. You didn't mention "your views" so the word "right" can't refer back to a word that wasn't there.

I could have just as easily said “I believe my views are right” but instead I said “I believe I am right” those two phrases mean the same thing. Unless english is your second language, you should know this

I never said anything about "at the moment" so you're just talking to yourself here.

The reason I said “at the moment” is because I was referring to emotional feelings. Emotional feelings are known to be here today and gone tomorrow. If my mom died and I’m feeling emotional about it, I might jump on somebody I see disrespecting their mother because I feel a temporary emotion towards all mothers. A year later after I’ve gotten over that emotional feeling, I might react differently to the same event. Emotional feelings is a poor way to morally judge actions; I don’t do that I judge based on how I perceive things. When I say murder is wrong, that is based on how I perceive things.

You've said that already. What's wrong with being unfair?

Okay, so you feel negative emotions because the murdered person feels negative emotions. One point for me and my "feelings make you think things are bad" theory.

I think those things are bad because it goes against how I judge and perceive right vs wrong. In a round about way, that could be said due to my preceptive feelings, (not emotional feelings) So what’s your point? If I judge certain things wrong based on how I feel concerning the issue, what’s wrong with that?

Save us both some time. Get down to the brute facts so that I have no reason to ask "why?". Do you have any brute facts?

Brute facts? Of course not; brute facts are objective, I said morality is subjective.