Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes that is one of the fallout of modern society who don't put value in a persons word or being honest anymore.
Not just modern society, there has always been people who lie, and those skeptical of those lies
A lot of people get caught out. But that doesn't mean that people don't tell the truth and we can trust them.
My dad used to say; “trust but verify”
The thing is those who are not truthful usually don't get away with it and are found out. But the truth will stand in the end and we can learn lessons and be confident about that truth.
I disagree! Too many people will greedily consume any sweet lie that flatters them, but will reluctantly nibble ever so skeptically at a truth they find bitter.
Then we would have to say that everyone from Jesus to the witnesses, and disciples to all the non-biblical people and events all being lies.
No; just those who wrote those particular books.
That means Jesus or whoever lied has fooled the world. They are all deluded or liars. Now I know that people can be deluded and lie about all sorts of things usually for self gain. But what benefit would there be for this hoax.
Christians are the richest and most powerful people on Earth! I call that self gain
We know that something pretty significant happened that changed our world and reality a little over 2,000 years ago by a man named Christ.
Christ is a title; not a name
I think where there's smoke there's usually fire. There has to be some truth as this impact has lasted and when its a scam or some crazy person, Charles Mason comes to mind there are telling signs eventually.
If your religion is true, that would mean all the other religions are a false scam regardless of the smoke they’ve caused. If you can believe 2/3 of the world’s population (percentage of world’s population that are not Christian) can be scammed by a lie, it shouldn’t surprise you that someone can believe 1/3 (percentage of population that are Christian) can be scammed
That's because you are narrowing what truth is down to empirical measures. As you have acknowledge there are truths that cannot be tested by the science method. We use faith with just about everything in some ways even when it comes to science.
When is faith used in science?
Science can tell us that the world is made of matter but it cannot tell us what that matter is, what ultimately caused it and what it represents in the greater scheme of things.
Matter is material, which is defined as something that occupies space. Science does not claim matter was actually caused.
But by claiming that reality is only made up of matter science is actually making an ontological claim about reality and that's beyond science and a metaphysical position.
Science does not claim reality is only made up of matter, that is a question not addressed by science.
All the methods you mention to measure the truth can be described as science measures. But as you have acknowledge there are different ways of finding a truth. Like we couldn't test, analyze, pull apart love.

Imagine testing and analyzing your partner to see if they loved you and have been faithful. I don't think the relationship would last long. But many people believe their partners love them and are faithful without any scientific support.
Love is a feeling. It does not need to be proven, and it is only as real as your imagination.
We can study and analyses the color red and find out all the physical processes involved. But that doesn't explain how we experience red. Yet it is true that we have conscious experiences of colors. But we cannot test for this.
I disagree. They do know how light works and how our vision allows us to experience colors
I disagree that the truth never asks to be believed. I think we have all seen people protesting an injustice calling out for the truth sometimes for years.
People calling for justice want evidence presented, picked apart, analyzed, and studied. They believe when this happens, the injustice will be made just
Dylan wrote a song about it with the song Hurricane. I don't think liars and the guilty can maintain any false declaration of truth as they don't even believe themselves and it eventually comes out in one way or another.

Though we can be mistaken I think we are pretty good at discerning the truth most of the time because that is what allowed us to live as a society.
Do you not see the contradiction here? How can you believe 66% of the worlds population (who are not Christian) believe a lie when it comes to religion, yet on the other hand claim most are pretty good at discerning the truth? I'm not gettin this; make it make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not aware of any idea in science that is impossible to prove and is still presented as an objective fact.
I never said these ideas are presented as facts but rather that these impossible to verify counterintuitive ideas are presented in the first place as possible explanations.
And what evidence from the real world is this?
What do you mean by real world evidence.

So you are saying that you can not have a subjective experience that is objective?
If your criticism is that subjectivity is not objective, you aren't making a point, you're simply stating the obvious.
No the experience of red is not a subjective one. Its a fact because we experience colors as being a real part of the physical world which influences reality. Moral subjectivity is different as it requires free will and a subjective choice which has no physical basis.

So if anything the phenomena of colors is an example of questioning whether physical reality has any basis in the objective world or whether it is determined by conscious experience.

And the same response to this.
It doesn't matter what color we are talking about. Its not the subjective view of colors but the conscious experience of colors in the first place I am talking about.

By the way there is no such thing as magenta color. It is something the mind makes up. The same as yellow and a number of other colors. Yet we experience these colors as real in nature.

Again, all you're doing here is complaining that subjective experiences aren't objective.
Actually quite the opposite. Subjective experience is an objective fact. Its a fact we experience colors and colors are part of the physical world.

You missed the point by so far I don't think you could even see it in the distance...
Actually many scientists think reality doesn't exist and we observers is what makes reality according to a number of interpretations of quantum physics.

Again, you completely missed my point.
Actually I think you are not following what Ken and I were talking about. Ken said
" Do you know the biggest difference between the truth and a lie? From my experience, the truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do."

So you are actually agreeing with me if that's the case that liars don't protest and demand we look at the evidence.

But Ken said liars do protest the most and that those claiming the truth don't protest from his experience I was disagreeing and saying its the other way around. That those telling the truth will protest the most even for years and liars will initially protest but cannot maintain the pretense as they know its false.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I never said these ideas are presented as facts but rather that these impossible to verify counterintuitive ideas are presented in the first place as possible explanations.

Then why did you even bring them up?

What do you mean by real world evidence.

You tell me. You're the one who said, "Yet there is real world evidence of Jesus which most scholars agree with." Don't tell me there's real world evidence of Jesus and then say you don't understand what "real world evidence" means.

No the experience of red is not a subjective one. Its a fact because we experience colors as being a real part of the physical world which influences reality. Moral subjectivity is different as it requires free will and a subjective choice which has no physical basis.

So if anything the phenomena of colors is an example of questioning whether physical reality has any basis in the objective world or whether it is determined by conscious experience.

Our experience is subjective. Don't tell me that we experience colours and then tell me that experience is not subjective.

It doesn't matter what color we are talking about. Its not the subjective view of colors but the conscious experience of colors in the first place I am talking about.

And that conscious experience of colour is subjective.

By the way there is no such thing as magenta color. It is something the mind makes up. The same as yellow and a number of other colors. Yet we experience these colors as real in nature.

So if we can experience magenta, and our experience is objective, but magenta doesn't exist, how can we possibly have anything other than a SUBJECTIVE experience of it?

Actually quite the opposite. Subjective experience is an objective fact. Its a fact we experience colors and colors are part of the physical world.

It is an objective fact that we have the experience.

That does not make the experience itself objective.

I dislike the taste of oysters.

I can taste oysters. If I do, it is an objective fact that I taste oysters. That does not mean my conclusion that they taste bad is an objective fact.

This is not the first time I have had to spell this out to you. Please stop making this basic mistake.

Actually many scientists think reality doesn't exist and we observers is what makes reality according to a number of interpretations of quantum physics.

What in the world?

You go on and on about how things like colours are objectively true as though you can prove that what I consider to be forest green is the same as what you call forest green, and now you turn around completely and say that there may not even be any objective reality at all?

Do you even know what point you are trying to make, or are you just automatically disagreeing with me?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That’s because materialism and empiricism is the only way things can be confirmed as true. Everything else requires faith, assumption, or imagination; terrible ways of establishing the truth.
OK so can you verify that there is only a material reality empirically. That's actually a metaphysical claim and therefore you have just made a faith based claim that there is only a material reality.

No, belief in God claims require faith, belief in Science claims do not.
The science method is based on an assumption that there is only a material reality. That assumption cannot be scientifically verified. So its a belief at the end of the day.

Science can explain reality in physical terms but that explanation may be one aspect of reality. How can science know that there is only a material reality when it cannot even test for it in the first place.

The problem with Jesus is that he never wrote anything down. The only thing we know about him is what other people said about him.
If that is the criteria for whether its true or not then we would have to reject most of our historical figures because they also did not write things down.
A lot of people said lots of stuff about him, and these claims do not align. So I disagree, we don't know what Jesus actually said.
How do they not align. First an interesting point is that more has been written about Jesus than any other figure. You would think because of this there would be a lot that doesn't align. But surprisingly a lot does align biblical and non biblical. We would give credit if it was any other figure in history.

This shows bias. I think that's because people don't want to be faced with a situation where they have to addressed the claims. So the best way around that is to undermine the claims by either claiming they were never made or if so are lies or peoples delusions.

That is according to the men who wrote the books that eventually became the bible. What about those men who wrote the books that eventually became the Gnostic gospels, or the Holy Quran? According to those men, Jesus never even made those claims. How come don't you accept their claims on faith?
A fair assessment of any historical event which shows that several biblical books and non-biblical literature align to support at least some central claims like Christs crucifixion happened compared to a couple of books that claim it didn't we would have to go with the larger and consistent sources.

No. According to the Muslims, the Jews were conspiring to crucify him, but Allah took him directly to Heaven before they could do it (sorta how Christians believe Elijah was taken directly to heaven)
Yes and as I pointed out we have several non-biblical writings that support Christ being crucified as an actual man. For example

Tacitus wrote Born: c. 56 AD
Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus

Phlegon 80 to 140 AD
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified


We can do some forensic investigations to see which claims stack.

To his followers maybe, but going by that logic, Jim Jones (Jonestown of the 1970’s) said he was the Messiah, many Christian leaders said he was not, but by refusing him as Messiah, they were acknowledging Jim Jones was regarded as the Messiah at that time
That's why we don't just use one line of support for what Jesus said. We look for consistency across all areas. One big factor in favor of Jesus and against Jim Jones is that Jones basically only had around 1,000 followers and the cult disappeared.

Whereas from the time Jesus was crucified Christianity has grown to be the largest religion and Christ has altered our world like no other. If I was trying to gather support for who was more likely a Messiah I think Christ wins hands down.

Or… that the men who made those claims were not telling the truth.
You would have to claim all biblical and non biblical accounts are lies. That includes those hostile to Jesus and wanted to prove him false but ended up supporting the Biblical account. Under a fair assessment I don't think calling everyone a liar is justified. We would not place such a high expectation on other historical figures.

The point is these claims have been made either by Jesus or eye witnesses or those who knew the events as they were known in at the time. But why would Christs disciples lie about this and then commit themselves to die for Jesus. That would be the actions of a deluded person.

And that's what it comes down to. Either there is some truth to these claims or its a lie and the people involved are deluded. Yet there is no reason to think anyone is deluded. We would have to say that our entire history about Christ is a delusion because the reason Christ is such a powerful figure that actually changes the world is because of those claims. If they are truly false and deluded then it would not matter so much. .
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You test the color red by looking at it
Actually looking at the color red proves our conscious experience of red rather than anything actually material about the color red.

Love and pain are personal feelings. You may not be able to prove it to others, but you can prove it to yourself
The point is we do accept these qualities as true in others as well and therefore as a real world phenomena that can influence reality.

That has nothing to do with what I said.
So your saying as humans we can never believe anything unless we have proof. Yet there are many things we believe without proof. At least without the kind of proof required by science.
 
Upvote 0

ottawak

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2021
1,495
725
64
North Carolina
✟16,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
OK so can you verify that there is only a material reality empirically. That's actually a metaphysical claim and therefore you have just made a faith based claim that there is only a material reality.

The science method is based on an assumption that there is only a material reality. That assumption cannot be scientifically verified. So its a belief at the end of the day.

Science can explain reality in physical terms but that explanation may be one aspect of reality. How can science know that there is only a material reality when it cannot even test for it in the first place.

If that is the criteria for whether its true or not then we would have to reject most of our historical figures because they also did not write things down. How do they not align. First an interesting point is that more has been written about Jesus than any other figure. You would think because of this there would be a lot that doesn't align. But surprisingly a lot does align biblical and non biblical. We would give credit if it was any other figure in history.

This shows bias. I think that's because people don't want to be faced with a situation where they have to addressed the claims. So the best way around that is to undermine the claims by either claiming they were never made or if so are lies or peoples delusions.

A fair assessment of any historical event which shows that several biblical books and non-biblical literature align to support at least some central claims like Christs crucifixion happened compared to a couple of books that claim it didn't we would have to go with the larger and consistent sources.

Yes and as I pointed out we have several non-biblical writings that support Christ being crucified as an actual man. For example

Tacitus wrote Born: c. 56 AD
Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus

Phlegon 80 to 140 AD
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified


We can do some forensic investigations to see which claims stack.

That's why we don't just use one line of support for what Jesus said. We look for consistency across all areas. One big factor in favor of Jesus and against Jim Jones is that Jones basically only had around 1,000 followers and the cult disappeared.

Whereas from the time Jesus was crucified Christianity has grown to be the largest religion and Christ has altered our world like no other. If I was trying to gather support for who was more likely a Messiah I think Christ wins hands down.

You would have to claim all biblical and non biblical accounts are lies. That includes those hostile to Jesus and wanted to prove him false but ended up supporting the Biblical account. Under a fair assessment I don't think calling everyone a liar is justified. We would not place such a high expectation on other historical figures.

The point is these claims have been made either by Jesus or eye witnesses or those who knew the events as they were known in at the time. But why would Christs disciples lie about this and then commit themselves to die for Jesus. That would be the actions of a deluded person.

And that's what it comes down to. Either there is some truth to these claims or its a lie and the people involved are deluded. Yet there is no reason to think anyone is deluded. We would have to say that our entire history about Christ is a delusion because the reason Christ is such a powerful figure that actually changes the world is because of those claims. If they are truly false and deluded then it would not matter so much. .
And none of that means we have to agree with you about what those claims are.
 
Upvote 0

ottawak

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2021
1,495
725
64
North Carolina
✟16,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Not sure what claims you are talking about.
The various claims made in Christ's name. Lately these have extended far into the political realm, but even the theological claims vary by denomination.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then why did you even bring them up?
To show that even science proposes ideas that can never be verified and therefore the materialistic view is unjustified as far as claiming to be the only explanation of reality.

You tell me. You're the one who said, "Yet there is real world evidence of Jesus which most scholars agree with." Don't tell me there's real world evidence of Jesus and then say you don't understand what "real world evidence" means.
Because I am surprised you claim there is no real world evidence when there is so I wanted to know what you meant by 'real world' evidence.

Our experience is subjective. Don't tell me that we experience colours and then tell me that experience is not subjective.
And that conscious experience of colour is subjective.
Though our experience is subjective our perception of colours is not subjective because we all see colours in basically the same way and colours are a real and objective thing in the world.Perception of colours is different to experience of colours and that is where I think the difference is.

So if we can experience magenta, and our experience is objective, but magenta doesn't exist, how can we possibly have anything other than a SUBJECTIVE experience of it?
Because magenta is created by our brain and its a colour in nature and therefore has an objective basis. We just experience the end result as magenta. So there is no subjective choice in the matter.

It is an objective fact that we have the experience.
That does not make the experience itself objective.
Why, the only thing we can truly say in an objective fact is that we experience the world. So we give the world meaning in that sense. This poses the question as to whether there actually is an objective world out there beyond ourselves. In other words everything may be mental and experience or consciousness and we only think there is an objective world.

I dislike the taste of oysters.
I can taste oysters. If I do, it is an objective fact that I taste oysters. That does not mean my conclusion that they taste bad is an objective fact.
This is not the first time I have had to spell this out to you. Please stop making this basic mistake.
Your missing the point. Its not about subjective tastes but the fact we experience taste as a sensation in the first place. There is no objective basis for our experience and yet its a fact that we can experience these things.

It doesn't matter if someone likes oysters and another dislikes them. Its the fact that we have an experience that causes us to like and dislike food in the first place.

What in the world?

You go on and on about how things like colours are objectively true as though you can prove that what I consider to be forest green is the same as what you call forest green, and now you turn around completely and say that there may not even be any objective reality at all?

Do you even know what point you are trying to make, or are you just automatically disagreeing with me?
Yep, that our experience is the only thing we can know is real and a fact.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The various claims made in Christ's name. Lately these have extended far into the political realm, but even the theological claims vary by denomination.
The only claims about Christ we can refer to are the ones actually made by Christ and those who were witness to him saying those things. So anything said in the political or theological realm cannot be relied upon.

But I cannot understand how theological claims can differ from claims about Christ in the bible. Its pretty clear and there is no room for interpretations. Christ is a real person. He was said to be a teacher and sinless man. He healed people, He claimed to be the Son of God, He was crucified for that claim and was resurrected from the dead.

I am talking about Historical Jesus and what is claimed by Him and about Him and not the application of Christs teachings. But still His teachings are pretty clear and should not be misinterpreted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To show that even science proposes ideas that can never be verified and therefore the materialistic view is unjustified as far as claiming to be the only explanation of reality.

And tell me, does science proclaim that any of these ideas (I'd love some examples, btw) MUST be true?

Because I am surprised you claim there is no real world evidence when there is so I wanted to know what you meant by 'real world' evidence.

I mean, if the Bible was completely removed, completely forgotten about, and all we had was going out and finding archeological evidence, that kind of thing, what evidence of Jesus would there be?

Though our experience is subjective our perception of colours is not subjective because we all see colours in basically the same way and colours are a real and objective thing in the world.Perception of colours is different to experience of colours and that is where I think the difference is.

Please show that perceiving something and experiencing something are different to the degree that you can claim that one is objective and the other is subjective.

Because magenta is created by our brain and its a colour in nature and therefore has an objective basis. We just experience the end result as magenta. So there is no subjective choice in the matter.

Hang on.

You just said we experience it as magenta, but you also said that our experience is subjective. So how can you now say that our experience of magenta is objective?

Why, the only thing we can truly say in an objective fact is that we experience the world. So we give the world meaning in that sense. This poses the question as to whether there actually is an objective world out there beyond ourselves. In other words everything may be mental and experience or consciousness and we only think there is an objective world.

So you are able to grasp the concept I'm talking about, even if you immediately take it to an extreme in order to ridicule.

Your missing the point. Its not about subjective tastes but the fact we experience taste as a sensation in the first place. There is no objective basis for our experience and yet its a fact that we can experience these things.

And nope, you've just gone back to missing my point again.

It doesn't matter if someone likes oysters and another dislikes them. Its the fact that we have an experience that causes us to like and dislike food in the first place.

And if I was claiming that people were not experiencing colour, then you'd have a point.

But that's NOT what I am saying, so your argument here is at best a strawman and at worst deliberately dishonest.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
OK so can you verify that there is only a material reality empirically. That's actually a metaphysical claim and therefore you have just made a faith based claim that there is only a material reality.
No. I’m saying as human beings, the only way we can verify that which is real is via empirical observations. That isn’t a metaphysical/philosophical claim, it is a reality.
The science method is based on an assumption that there is only a material reality. That assumption cannot be scientifically verified. So its a belief at the end of the day.

Science can explain reality in physical terms but that explanation may be one aspect of reality. How can science know that there is only a material reality when it cannot even test for it in the first place.
There is no scientific theory that claims there is only a material reality. Science gives us the best information they have at the moment, and all of their information involves the material reality. They do not address the possibilities of other realities; that would be under the category of your metaphysical/philosophical ideas.
If that is the criteria for whether its true or not then we would have to reject most of our historical figures because they also did not write things down.
I didn’t say it was a criteria of truth or not, I’m saying it becomes a problem if you expect it to be believed. And a lot of historical figures are and continue to be rejected for one reason or another, but let’s be clear; if I said years ago a military leader named Caesar did a bunch of things military generals are known to do, that is far different than saying many years ago, a man named Jesus did a bunch of things no man in history has ever been known to do. One claim sounds believable, the other exaggerated.
How do they not align. First an interesting point is that more has been written about Jesus than any other figure. You would think because of this there would be a lot that doesn't align. But surprisingly a lot does align biblical and non biblical. We would give credit if it was any other figure in history.
My point is; there is a lot more written about Jesus than the accounts that make up what you call the Bible (I say what you call the bible because as I’m sure you know; not all bibles are the same; some countries have bibles with completely different books than your American King James version of the bible). Many of the claims from those books do not align with some of the claims that are a part of some of the other religious texts.

I will respond to the rest later
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
A fair assessment of any historical event which shows that several biblical books and non-biblical literature align to support at least some central claims like Christs crucifixion happened compared to a couple of books that claim it didn't we would have to go with the larger and consistent sources.
Go by the larger sources? No. You need to realize; entire religions rests on these claims. If it were proven that Jesus was never crucified and rose from the dead, the Christian religion would be proven false.
If it were proven that Jesus WAS crucified and rose from the dead, the entire religion of Islam would be proven false.
Christians have their outside sources that suggest their Bible is true, Muslims have their outside sources that suggest their Koran is true. People believe what they want, I personally have my doubts concerning both books.
You would have to claim all biblical and non biblical accounts are lies. That includes those hostile to Jesus and wanted to prove him false but ended up supporting the Biblical account.
No. We just need to point to specific claims that are untrue, and call them lies. It would be foolish to reject everything a person says simply because they got 1 or 2 things wrong IMO
The point is these claims have been made either by Jesus or eye witnesses or those who knew the events as they were known in at the time.
All claims? So when Nichodemus came to Jesus in the middle of the night and admitted what he did, who witnessed this event in order for it to get into your bible? They were alone remember?
When Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, who witnessed the details of that event in order for it to get into your Bible? His Disciples were all asleep remember? Are you sure ALL claims were by eye witnesses?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Actually looking at the color red proves our conscious experience of red rather than anything actually material about the color red.
I never said colors were material. As mentioned before, material (matter) is defined as something that occupies space. Colors do not occupy space
The point is we do accept these qualities as true in others as well and therefore as a real world phenomena that can influence reality.
If you told me you had chickens that could lay 5-6 eggs per week, I would believe you and would likely buy one of your chickens if I were in the market of buying chickens based strictly on your word.
However; if you told me you had chickens that could lay eggs of solid gold, and were willing to sell me one of your chickens at a reasonable price….. now your word is no longer good enough, I will at minimum require a solid gold egg for my personal inspection, and would probably go as far as being allowed to monitor one of these chickens while they lay a golden egg.
Not all claims are to be treated equally; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So your saying as humans we can never believe anything unless we have proof.
No. I’m saying from my experience; those who make claims and don’t want you to investigate, are more often than not telling a lie.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Active Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
42
57
Georgia
✟10,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.
The Euthyphro Solution ~ by ReverendRV

Psalm 33:5 NIV
; The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a supposed debate between Socrates and Euthyphro, told to us by Plato; and Atheists use it to Debunk Theism. It basically asks, ‘Is Morality Good because God Decrees it to be Good, or does God recognize that Morality is Good in and of itself?’. This is like asking ‘Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg’ but instead asks ‘Which came first, Morality or God?’ The question makes us wonder if Morality exists outside of God instead of reflecting God’s Nature; ergo, there is no need for God to exist for Morality to exist. Christians use the existence of Morality to try and prove the existence of God. Atheists remove this argument from the Arena of Ideas by raising the dilemma. ~ A big problem for the Euthyphro Dilemma is Morality as a factor. Most Atheists believe in Moral Relativism, IE Morality is Relative to the Individual. Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma. If Morality is external to God, but this Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; and secondly, Moral Relativism can’t be Good in and of itself…

If Objective Morality is Transcendent, (and if it’s outside of God, it is Transcendent); then we can still be judged, even if God doesn’t exist. We judge people based on our Consciences all the time. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? What do you call people who Lie? If someone Lied about paying you back, then they’re Liars and Thieves! We know a Lie when we hear it; and when we speak it. Thou shalt not Lie is Inherently True to all of us, not Relatively true to some of us. Have you had another God other than the God of the Bible? This violates the First Commandment; just as having your own Subjective Ethic which says you Can Lie and Steal, violates your Inherent Ethic. ~ These are only three of the Ten Commandments; if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or to Hell?

The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin; and also has to make a way of escape. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal Life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived a Sinless Human life and deserved his perfect record. God is pleased by Holiness, so in order to be Saved, we also need that kind of Righteousness. Jesus died in our place by shedding his blood on the Cross, but arose from the grave to newness of Life! We’re Saved by God’s Grace through Faith in the risen Jesus Christ, not by Works lest we Boast. Repent of your Sin and Confess Jesus Christ as your LORD God; then you will be Righteous, as he is Righteous. ~ Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you because it’s personal, but only exists because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, if God exists he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…

Luke 6:31 NIV; Do to others as you would have them do to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brihaha
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No. I’m saying as human beings, the only way we can verify that which is real is via empirical observations. That isn’t a metaphysical/philosophical claim, it is a reality.
Yes that's a metaphysical claim because its claiming the only way to verify reality is through empirical observations. It assumes that the only thing real is a physical reality. Yet our senses could be deceiving us and there is no way to verify that they are not because we would have to know everything there is to know about reality and we don't or cannot claim we do know everything.

There is no scientific theory that claims there is only a material reality. Science gives us the best information they have at the moment, and all of their information involves the material reality. They do not address the possibilities of other realities; that would be under the category of your metaphysical/philosophical ideas.
But you just said above that the only way to verify reality is empirically through the science method. That is making a metaphysical claim that reality is based on stuff that only science can measure.

When someone disputes non-material phenomena with science they are making a metaphysical claim as they are assuming and claiming that there is no such thing because the science says so.

I didn’t say it was a criteria of truth or not, I’m saying it becomes a problem if you expect it to be believed. And a lot of historical figures are and continue to be rejected for one reason or another, but let’s be clear; if I said years ago a military leader named Caesar did a bunch of things military generals are known to do, that is far different than saying many years ago, a man named Jesus did a bunch of things no man in history has ever been known to do. One claim sounds believable, the other exaggerated.
But we are not talking about whether the claims are actually true or not but that the claims were made in the first place.

My point is; there is a lot more written about Jesus than the accounts that make up what you call the Bible (I say what you call the bible because as I’m sure you know; not all bibles are the same; some countries have bibles with completely different books than your American King James version of the bible). Many of the claims from those books do not align with some of the claims that are a part of some of the other religious texts.
What Bibles are these. There is only one bible. Besides non-biblical evidence from other texts and archeological discoveries support the common well know bible and not these other bibles what ever they are. As far as the central claims about Christ there are no other bibles that contradict this.If you disagree then you need to support your claim.

I will respond to the rest later
OK no worries.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Euthyphro Solution ~ by ReverendRV

Psalm 33:5 NIV
; The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a supposed debate between Socrates and Euthyphro, told to us by Plato; and Atheists use it to Debunk Theism. It basically asks, ‘Is Morality Good because God Decrees it to be Good, or does God recognize that Morality is Good in and of itself?’. This is like asking ‘Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg’ but instead asks ‘Which came first, Morality or God?’ The question makes us wonder if Morality exists outside of God instead of reflecting God’s Nature; ergo, there is no need for God to exist for Morality to exist. Christians use the existence of Morality to try and prove the existence of God. Atheists remove this argument from the Arena of Ideas by raising the dilemma. ~ A big problem for the Euthyphro Dilemma is Morality as a factor. Most Atheists believe in Moral Relativism, IE Morality is Relative to the Individual. Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma. If Morality is external to God, but this Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; and secondly, Moral Relativism can’t be Good in and of itself…

If Objective Morality is Transcendent, (and if it’s outside of God, it is Transcendent); then we can still be judged, even if God doesn’t exist. We judge people based on our Consciences all the time. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? What do you call people who Lie? If someone Lied about paying you back, then they’re Liars and Thieves! We know a Lie when we hear it; and when we speak it. Thou shalt not Lie is Inherently True to all of us, not Relatively true to some of us. Have you had another God other than the God of the Bible? This violates the First Commandment; just as having your own Subjective Ethic which says you Can Lie and Steal, violates your Inherent Ethic. ~ These are only three of the Ten Commandments; if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or to Hell?

The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin; and also has to make a way of escape. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal Life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived a Sinless Human life and deserved his perfect record. God is pleased by Holiness, so in order to be Saved, we also need that kind of Righteousness. Jesus died in our place by shedding his blood on the Cross, but arose from the grave to newness of Life! We’re Saved by God’s Grace through Faith in the risen Jesus Christ, not by Works lest we Boast. Repent of your Sin and Confess Jesus Christ as your LORD God; then you will be Righteous, as he is Righteous. ~ Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you because it’s personal, but only exists because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, if God exists he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…

Luke 6:31 NIV; Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I would respond to this by saying that there is no God and morality is subjective. Without God, the question of whether God loves moral people because they are moral, or are they moral because God loves them becomes irrelevant. And the fact that people have differing viewpoints on moral issues such as same sex marriage, capital punishment for certain crimes, or even on issues such as whether it is acceptable to use smacking as a punishment for a disobedient child shows that there is no objective morality.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma.
True! And because Euthyphro believes morality is objective, it is a dilemma for him. If he recognized morality to be subjective, it would no longer be a dilemma.
If Morality is external to God, but this Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma;
No. A moral subjectivist will use the Euthyphro Dilemma against those who believe morality to be objective.
(I use moral subjectivist in place of atheist because there are atheists who actually believe morality to be objective)
Question for you (assuming you are an objective moralist) Can you give an example of a moral dilemma that does not just so happen to align with your personal moral views? Or do you believe yourself to be morally perfect, and anyone who disagrees with you is objective morally wrong.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin.
Objective morality is defined as a moral proposition whose truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient being. God is a sentient being. Objective morality means it's true apart from God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ReverendRV
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes that's a metaphysical claim because its claiming the only way to verify reality is through empirical observations.
No; I never said that. Again; I said as humans the only means we have to verify is via empirical observations. Whether or not there are other ways mankind does not know about is NOT something I’ve addressed.
It assumes that the only thing real is a physical reality.
No it does not.
But you just said above that the only way to verify reality is empirically through the science method.
Again; I did not say that.
When someone disputes non-material phenomena with science they are making a metaphysical claim as they are assuming and claiming that there is no such thing because the science says so.
No. When someone disputes a non-material phenomena, they are saying there is no proof to support your claim
But we are not talking about whether the claims are actually true or not but that the claims were made in the first place.
No. You were pointing out how people readily accept claims concerning other historical figures who didn’t write anything down, but will not do the same for Jesus. That is what I was refuting.
What Bibles are these. There is only one bible. Besides non-biblical evidence from other texts and archeological discoveries support the common well know bible and not these other bibles what ever they are. As far as the central claims about Christ there are no other bibles that contradict this.If you disagree then you need to support your claim.

OK no worries.
The King James Bible And The Ethiopian Bible: What's The Difference?
Not trying to derail the thread, but my point was that there was a lot more written about Jesus than what is in your Bible, and some of those writings do not align with what your bible says.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ReverendRV

Active Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
42
57
Georgia
✟10,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
True! And because Euthyphro believes morality is objective, it is a dilemma for him. If he recognized morality to be subjective, it would no longer be a dilemma.

Question for you (assuming you are an objective moralist) Can you give an example of a moral dilemma that does not just so happen to align with your personal moral views? Or do you believe yourself to be morally perfect, and anyone who disagrees with you is objective morally wrong.
Thanks for liking part of my argument. I will try to answer your question with another of my Gospel Tracts...

Vain Philosophy ~ by Reverend RV

Colossians 2:8 KJV
; Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Vanity in the Bible means empty and useless; self serving. ~ In a discussion with a Secularist I compared the Transcendent Laws of Logic to the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil. He said that if I could get the Laws of Logic to show the difference between Good and Evil, then I would solve the age old Debate; isn't it nice when people tell you what it takes to win them? ~ A ‘Married Bachelor’ is a popular example for the Law of Contradiction. The example shows that the Philosophical Laws of Logic conflate with the Moral Law of God; what would a husband’s wife say if he brought a girlfriend home? Certainly a married Bachelor can’t exist; or can he? When a husband lives his life as if he's a ‘Swinging Single’ because of his Subjective Morality (which Relativists affirm), instead of Objective Morality (which they deny); then I've proven the Transcendent Laws of Logic provide them the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The strange thing is, some Secularists affirm that the Laws of Logic are Objective but not Transcendent; go figure...

Do you live your life as a Married Bachelor? Most are familiar with the television show ‘The Bachelor’. What if on the last episode, the Bachelorette found out the Bachelor is married; but ‘to him’ he is still a Bachelor? ~ What would you call the Bachelor for Lying? Have you ever told a Lie?? What would you call someone who stole from you? Have you stolen even one thing? Have you ever committed Adultery? Jesus said that if you’ve Lusted after someone, then you’ve committed Adultery in your Heart. Would our Married Bachelor have committed Adultery just by being on the show? Then you are an Adulterer too! We can see how Vain their Philosophy is when they believe in Objectivity and in Subjectivity, that’s a violation of the Law of Contradiction; Vanity of Vanities! ~ If God judged you by his standard, would you be innocent or guilty? Would you go to Heaven or to Hell? Does this bother you even in the least??

God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting Life! Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and this granted him a Sinless advantage in life. He remained Sinless and qualified to be the spotless sacrifice for the Sins of the world. He shed his blood, died on a Cross to satisfy the Wrath of God against all who now believe; and to purify us so we are acceptable to God. We’re Saved by Grace through Faith in the Resurrected Jesus Christ, not by any Work we could ever do to earn our Justification. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; and join a Church that always preaches the Bible; a Church that also looks for Lost Souls. ~ The Laws of Logic are accepted as Transcendent by Philosophers and by Christians. Both sides will agree we didn’t invent the Laws, but discovered them. How can they exist without a Transcendent Intellect then?

Jeremiah 15:16 KJV; Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0