Morality without Absolute Morality

[Stopped_lurking]

Nah, because we've established no common ground for engagement so there's no point in just swapping opinions.

Ok, your opinion is noted. Just so we are clear, I do believe that we can measure knowledge by testing although the process is imperfect.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, your opinion is noted. Just so we are clear, I do believe that we can measure knowledge by testing although the process is imperfect.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

You said that god have the authority to tell others how they should behave. When questioned about why god have that authority, you said that it was connected to knowledge.

Then I asked what do god know, and how do we know what god knows? So I put forth that we could test what god knows with standardised tests.

Then you said something about opinions, and that there was no common ground for discussions. But I do believe knowledge is able to be measured and we can surely find a measure we could apply to god to see if god has enough knowledge to have the authority to determine how people should behave.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you claim, but you are speaking from ignorance.

I don't know where humans come from? Seriously man, this is basic knowledge. All humans grow from a single cell to adulthood. (Or did you spontaneously pop into existence?)

Uh huh.

I really don't care what you care about, all you have is opinions and you expect me to care about those.

"Nature" is a non-existent concept, it's not a place and exists no where outside the human mind as a means of categorizing contingent things.

Then what is this "nature" you speak of?

Existence is a category that doesn't apply to truth statements. The conversation isn''t what's confused, it's you that is confused.

What good is the "truth" of a non-existence? You bet I am confused. You speak in gibberish.

It's not meant to be an argument, simply clarification because you don't seem to understand my position at all.

he'd be as qualified as you.

It's not a sensible position. You are just making assertions about the god you believe in somehow granting properties to "truths" by merely existing.

Uh huh

Sure, but there's no reason to take them seriously since they're all just people's personal preferences. All that matters in that case is how much we're willing to force others to comply with what we want, so discussion is rather pointless.

And so?

Not as something that actually exists, and when "naturalists" talk about it I often find them unable to provide me with a sensible definition or any foundation to their epistemology.

Stuff that exists and demonstrable. That is my basis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you're proposing that the objective standard for morality is established via authority... is that correct? Via edict.

That is correct, no matter how much it is denied. All you will get are the presuppositions of existing personal preferences.

 

[Fervent]

I don't know where humans come from? Seriously man, this is basic knowledge. All humans grow from a single cell to adulthood. (Or did you spontaneously pop into existence?)

Not ultimately, no.

Then what is this "nature" you speak of?

God's nature, as in His essence

What good is the "truth" of a non-existence? You bet I am confused. You speak in gibberish.

Existence is a category for objects, not truths. Truths either obtain or they don't, but there are numerous ways for a truth to obtain.

It's not a sensible position. You are just making assertions about the god you believe in somehow granting properties to "truths" by merely existing.

what you consider sensible is of no interest to me.

And so?

And so assertion is as good an argument as any.

Stuff that exists and demonstrable. That is my basis.

"Demonstrable"? By what means? And to whom? We're quickly treading towards the diallelus.