The Moral Argument (revamped)

createdtoworship · Jul 14, 2019

cvanwey said:
Disclaimer: This is for all others whom further interact with you, not you so much; as this is a global and public forum. So feel free to 'block' what I write below

You must be right. No diagnosis for any mental condition truly and reliably exists. Autism, depression, anxiety disorder, or any others, which relates to one's brain states... This appears to be the ONLY way you can 'claim victory'; by muddying the waters entirely.

Again, you would have to completely reject psychopathy as a true diagnoses in general, to further your argument.

Otherwise, in conclusion, EVEN IF everything you stated about dolphins were true, that they only help humans because dolphins view humans as a food providing source, you would have to ALSO reconcile that some humans are diagnosed with the inability to empathize with others. Hence, there exists a population, whom share the traits of dolphins. Meaning, incapable of sacrifice.

And on a side note, as I noticed you changed your responses after I posted my last one, I'm not 'emotional', other than being amused by your apologetic tactics.

I must say, it does get rather old to be on the receiving end of the same 'ol argument, 'we all have faith in something.'

again most mental disorders are unprovable. That is why psychiatry is not a hard science. This alone should suffice. I don't feel I need to beat a dead horse here. Any thing you can possibly say at this point will not make it a hard science. I know this upsets you like nothing else, that you cannot prove this soft science, but if even hard scientists don't even claim to prove theories, how can a soft science? I know it's upsetting so I figured I would lighten the room with some humor:

holo · Jul 14, 2019

cvanwey said:
Yes, in search, I've found this drug as a candidate as well. But it is speculative thus far... Furthermore, if it works for psychopaths, it will most likely work for other empathic capable species.

In any case, the fact that a drug (or other external stimulation of the brain) can induce experiences of empathy (not to mention fearlessness, tranquility, alertness etc) is pretty solid evidence that the human experience is a product of the brain.

cvanwey · Jul 14, 2019

gradyll said:
again most mental disorders are unprovable. That is why psychiatry is not a hard science. This alone should suffice. I don't feel I need to beat a dead horse here. Any thing you can possibly say at this point will not make it a hard science. I know this upsets you like nothing else, that you cannot prove this soft science, but if even hard scientists don't even claim to prove theories, how can a soft science? I know it's upsetting so I figured I would lighten the room with some humor:

View attachment 259501

I know what you are doing. And no, it's not upsetting, it's comical. We can't 'prove' anything, therefore, Yahweh requires faith, just like "my 'faith' in science."

Well, here's a thought... Off topic, regarding 'hard science', since this conversation is going nowhere:

500 years ago, the 'world was flat'. 75 years ago, the 'world is a perfect sphere.' 25 years ago, the 'world is more pair-shaped.'

Since even the 'hard sciences' cannot 'prove' anything, let's move forward...

25 years from now, new discovery demonstrates the earth has a differing shape then what is 'proven' now. I then ask you the trillion dollar question....

How many further/future facts will it take to properly rule out the notion that the world may still be 'flat'?

And remember, there still exists a 'flat earth society', and there may always exist such a group, no matter how much new evidence comes forth. Because again, nothing is 'provable,' even in the 'hard sciences.'

Please.

Good day

cvanwey · Jul 14, 2019

gradyll said:
again most mental disorders are unprovable. That is why psychiatry is not a hard science. This alone should suffice.
View attachment 259501

This post deserves a second response. Not to continue addressing the 'hard science', but to instead address the 'soft science.'

2,000 years ago, 'mental disorders were the work of demon possession.' Since 'soft science' is not 'provable' either, I guess we need to continue leaving demon possession in as a continued plausible conclusion for mental illness. Because, you know, you can't prove they are all not possessed

Heck, we can't rule anything out. Hence, we all have 'faith'.

And no, this is not a straw man per se, because I'm not saying this is specifically what you claim about illness. I'm demonstrating a point...

Again, when your apologetic's tactics are to muddy the waters this much so, (you) always come out victorious.

Great job.

createdtoworship · Jul 15, 2019

holo said:
In any case, the fact that a drug (or other external stimulation of the brain) can induce experiences of empathy (not to mention fearlessness, tranquility, alertness etc) is pretty solid evidence that the human experience is a product of the brain.

I would not disagree that human experience is due to brain activity. So I am unsure where you are going with this?

createdtoworship · Jul 15, 2019

cvanwey said:
I know what you are doing. And no, it's not upsetting, it's comical. We can't 'prove' anything, therefore, Yahweh requires faith, just like "my 'faith' in science."

Well, here's a thought... Off topic, regarding 'hard science', since this conversation is going nowhere:

500 years ago, the 'world was flat'. 75 years ago, the 'world is a perfect sphere.' 25 years ago, the 'world is more pair-shaped.'

Since even the 'hard sciences' cannot 'prove' anything, let's move forward...

25 years from now, new discovery demonstrates the earth has a differing shape then what is 'proven' now. I then ask you the trillion dollar question....

How many further/future facts will it take to properly rule out the notion that the world may still be 'flat'?

And remember, there still exists a 'flat earth society', and there may always exist such a group, no matter how much new evidence comes forth. Because again, nothing is 'provable,' even in the 'hard sciences.'

Please.

Good day

sorry your two sentences did not have any of your questions, so I guess you need to repost them if you want an answer. I am not afraid of anything you have to say, I have heard it all before. But you must abbreviate. Since you are on block right now.

createdtoworship · Jul 15, 2019

cvanwey said:
This post deserves a second response. Not to continue addressing the 'hard science', but to instead address the 'soft science.'

2,000 years ago, 'mental disorders were the work of demon possession.' Since 'soft science' is not 'provable' either, I guess we need to continue leaving demon possession in as a continued plausible conclusion for mental illness. Because, you know, you can't prove they are all not possessed Heck, we can't rule anything out. Hence, we all have 'faith'.

And no, this is not a straw man per se, because I'm not saying this is specifically what you claim about illness. I'm demonstrating a point...

Again, when your apologetic's tactics are to muddy the waters this much so, (you) always come out victorious.

Great job.

sorry your two sentences were up, and I didn't see your question. I did see something about mental disorders and possession. And there is a fine line there, I can tell you stories about possessions, and most doctors would emediately say it's a mental disorder. But why when you pray over them are they healed of it emediately? Anyway. Just so you know 200 years ago, nearly all scientists believed in God. So I can question old practices too.

cvanwey · Jul 15, 2019

gradyll said:
sorry your two sentences were up, and I didn't see your question. I did see something about mental disorders and possession. And there is a fine line there, I can tell you stories about possessions, and most doctors would emediately say it's a mental disorder. But why when you pray over them are they healed of it emediately? Anyway. Just so you know 200 years ago, nearly all scientists believed in God. So I can question old practices too.

Nothing you have said is relevant. Posts 883 and 884, if you wish to actually get relevant.

createdtoworship · Jul 15, 2019

cvanwey said:
Nothing you have said is relevant. Posts 883 and 884, if you wish to actually get relevant.

I can't read those posts as you are blocked, but if you wish to make a few sentence defense to get my reply go ahead. But I presume you won't. Because I am not entirely sure you wish for an answer.

Ken-1122 · Jul 15, 2019

gradyll said:
the moral argument for God's existence is basically summed up like this, real simple. How does an atheist account for morality? In other words, what makes a God who tortures babies for fun, evil? Or a God who loves babies, Good? Who or what law does an atheist adhere to to make that call? IT is the moral law. If the moral law does not exist, then we are forced to vote for morality in which the atheist is forced to declare that there is not proper moral ground to declare any act of God evil without evidence (as voting for morality is not empirical methodology).

even stanford encyclopedia of philosophy states this:

"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

My pastor has said rightly, the fact that our conscience is higher than our moral performance, reveals that the source of our morality is higher than us, and finds it's roots in God himself.

any thoughts?

As an atheist, I adhere to my own moral law. I believe each person has an idea of what is right vs wrong, and those ideas vary a little from person to person.

If the moral laws came from your God, how is that any different than them coming from me, or anybody else? Yeah; you and others who may agree with your God may attempt to follow your God’s law, but if moral laws came from me, I and those who agree with me will attempt to follow my laws. How is this different?

cvanwey · Jul 15, 2019

gradyll said:
I can't read those posts as you are blocked, but if you wish to make a few sentence defense to get my reply go ahead. But I presume you won't. Because I am not entirely sure you wish for an answer.

Posts 883 and 884.

createdtoworship · Jul 15, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
As an atheist, I adhere to my own moral law. I believe each person has an idea of what is right vs wrong, and those ideas vary a little from person to person.

If the moral laws came from your God, how is that any different than them coming from me, or anybody else? Yeah; you and others who may agree with your God may attempt to follow your God’s law, but if moral laws came from me, I and those who agree with me will attempt to follow my laws. How is this different?

Well because you have no natural causatory source for let's say sacrificial love. Can you prove you attained this via evolution or some other natural cause? I have a source for my morality, but what is your source?

Ken-1122 · Jul 15, 2019

gradyll said:
Well because you have no natural causatory source for let's say sacrificial love. Can you prove you attained this via evolution or some other natural cause? I have a source for my morality, but what is your source?

I am the source of my morality. As an intelligent human being who knows the difference between right and wrong, I decide what is right or wrong. Do you know the difference between right or wrong? If not, how do you know your source is leading you right?

createdtoworship · Jul 16, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
I am the source of my morality. As an intelligent human being who knows the difference between right and wrong, I decide what is right or wrong. Do you know the difference between right or wrong? If not, how do you know your source is leading you right?

but how did you develop that source of right and wrong, remember most athiests believe in evolution, so you must believe it evolved. The most people I talk to try to make it sound that along with the development of the brain, compassion and sacrificial love developed and evolved. However people with higher IQ are not more loving than people with lower IQ. So that idea is toast. So where else did you develop your sense of morality, and don't tell me it was learned, because everyone in the world has the same sense of morality. No where in the world can you find a tribe or culture where selfishness is honored and where self sacrifice is not honored. But you can try. That means that disregardless of politics, religion and family units or lack of family, people have inside a sense of right and wrong. So where did it come from? It's not learned evidently, and it didn't evolve evidently. So where did it come from?

Ken-1122 · Jul 16, 2019

gradyll said:
but how did you develop that source of right and wrong, remember most athiests believe in evolution, so you must believe it evolved.

My mind is my source of right and wrong. Are you asking me how did my brain develop?

createdtoworship · Jul 17, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
My mind is my source of right and wrong. Are you asking me how did my brain develop?

what makes you different from animals that you have sacrificial love and they don't, after all you evolved from them correct? It's not the brain in this case because people of larger brains are not necessarily more loving than those with smaller brains, it's not brain function because those who are healthy are not necessarily more loving than those with mental illness, it's not intelligence because those with higher IQ's are not necessarily more loving than those with lower IQ's. So you really have to find some citation to source to support your view that the brain makes you love more than those with lesser functioning, smaller, less efficient brains.

Ken-1122 · Jul 17, 2019

gradyll said:
what makes you different from animals that you have sacrificial love and they don't, after all you evolved from them correct?

Humans ARE animals. To say we evolved from animals implies we no longer are.

gradyll said:
It's not the brain in this case because people of larger brains are not necessarily more loving than those with smaller brains, it's not brain function because those who are healthy are not necessarily more loving than those with mental illness, it's not intelligence because those with higher IQ's are not necessarily more loving than those with lower IQ's. So you really have to find some citation to source to support your view that the brain makes you love more than those with lesser functioning, smaller, less efficient brains.

I said nothing about my brain giving me a superior ability to love, I said my brain gives me the ability to understand the difference between right vs wrong.

createdtoworship · Jul 17, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
Humans ARE animals. To say we evolved from animals implies we no longer are.

I said nothing about my brain giving me a superior ability to love, I said my brain gives me the ability to understand the difference between right vs wrong.

I am the source of my morality. As an intelligent human being who knows the difference between right and wrong, I decide what is right or wrong.

I don't care about rationalization between right and wrong. That self refutes most skeptics because they don't even believe in absolute truth of right and wrong. So do you believe in absolutes?

Ken-1122 · Jul 17, 2019

gradyll said:
I don't care about rationalization between right and wrong. That self refutes most skeptics because they don't even believe in absolute truth of right and wrong. So do you believe in absolutes?

When you say "absolute", do you mean objective? As in the opposite of Subjective?

createdtoworship · Jul 17, 2019

Ken-1122 said:
When you say "absolute", do you mean objective? As in the opposite of Subjective?

yes sir, do you believe in objective truth or subjective truth. If subjective then is it truly right and wrong, we need to see what you believe as far as absolutes.

The Moral Argument (revamped)

In the grip of grace

former Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Newbie

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Similar threads