Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I have a reason for holding my beliefs.

If your reason for holding your beliefs is based upon logic or reason then you need to have a reason as to why those premises are correct or reliable (reason & logic). In Epistemology it's called 'justified true belief' and under a secular framework it's impossible to justify the use of these beyond the statement 'it's all we have', in which case it still remains inherently circular as they rely on themselves to prove themselves true (which is question begging). Every atheist is forced to admit their beliefs are held on faith due to this. Another reason for this would be that you have to assume that you yourself exist before you commit to a single thought. So I'd simply posit that if you have no reason as to why reason is right, how could you justify any claims you make if you remove the possibility of it? (the reason that reason would be authoritative is because something transcendent justifies it as being the case)

 

[DaisyDay]

I've been trying to abstain from this as I know there's not going to be reconciliation between our views but, if it's true that you can't know truth, wouldn't that mean you know truth? (the truth being that you can't know it) I know you see it as semantics but I want you to try and see it as logic, the same kind of logic you use to reason your way into a nebulous form of truth

We seem to be coming from opposite ends - you are passionate about this but not curious while I’m curious but not passionate.

The elephant here is what we mean by “truth”. If we are defining truth as that which is universally, objectively true then this is the premise not the conclusion. That’s fine as long as that’s clear.

As for your argument that “not knowing” is a form of “knowing”, no, that is absurd. You can convolute it by adding a layer saying “I know that I don’t know [something]” but the underlying thing remains unknown.

There is a quibble here in the difference between saying something is unknown and saying something is unknowable. I think this is the crux of your argument.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

We seem to be coming from opposite ends - you are passionate about this but not curious while I’m curious but not passionate.

The elephant here is what we mean by “truth”. If we are defining truth as that which is universally, objectively true then this is the premise not the conclusion. That’s fine as long as that’s clear.

As for your argument that “not knowing” is a form of “knowing”, no, that is absurd. You can convolute it by adding a layer saying “I know that I don’t know [something]” but the underlying thing remains unknown.

There is a quibble here in the difference between saying something is unknown and saying something is unknowable. I think this is the crux of your argument.

Yes the underlying thing remains unknown but you yourself in that statement would know that you don't know it. Which would make it true that you don't know it. I argue that even if you say you do not know a thing, in the admission of such you make the positive statement that "it is true that I do not know a thing". I'd also argue that you first believe that you yourself exist and therefore every single thought you have flows from that assumption. While you may not agree with the premise that you know that you yourself exist, in order to posit thoughts you have to believe that it is the truth/reality.

Thus in this definition, truth again would be something that occurs independent of what you believe.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes the underlying thing remains unknown but you yourself in that statement would know that you don't know it. Which would make it true that you don't know it. I argue that even if you say you do not know a thing, in the admission of such you make the positive statement that "it is true that I do not know a thing". I'd also argue that you first believe that you yourself exist and therefore every single thought you have flows from that assumption. While you may not agree with the premise that you know that you yourself exist, in order to posit thoughts you have to believe that it is the truth/reality.

Thus in this definition, truth again would be something that occurs independent of what you believe.

Again, my saying that I know that I don’t know [something] doesn’t make that underlying [something] known to me. I don’t understand why you think it is important that I believe some given thing is true, not that a specific thing is true (or may be true). Are you trying to say that “truth” in some form exists?

 

[DaisyDay]

Are you trying to argue that if I believe that something is true that I therefore must also believe that there is a single universal truth? Because I don’t.

And, once again, if we agree with the premise that “truth” is defined as that which is objectively universally true then this is the premise. Are we agreeing with this or do you want to propose a different definition of “truth”?

If we can’t agree on what we mean by the term then we will just be talking past each other.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Again, my saying that I know that I don’t know [something] doesn’t make that underlying [something] known to me. I don’t understand why you think it is important that I believe some given thing is true, not that a specific thing is true (or may be true). Are you trying to say that “truth” in some form exists?

No it may not make that thing known to you, but within your very sentence "my saying that I know that I don’t know [something] doesn’t make that underlying [something] known to me" is the agreement that you don't know something. No matter what you say there will always be an assumption of what you believe to be the case and therefore the truth.

It's like arguing about the colour of the sky, you both can argue over shades for hours but in the argument that the sky is blue, you have to admit by necessity that you believe it's true that there is a sky. You cannot speak to ANYTHING in existence without this assumption, which is why I used the example of the belief of yourself first existing. This is why the statement "there is no truth" would be self defeating (and not merely semantics), because when you say "there is no truth" you thereby appeal to the truth because the truth would be that there is no truth. I can't figure out how to explain this any clearer and I don't think it's your fault at all, I think I'm genuinely dense lol.

 

[DaisyDay]

Again and again and yet again, do we mean the same thing by “truth” or not? How are we defining the term? I have proposed a definition based on the conversation so far, but you have not agreed or disagreed. If you do disagree then please state your understanding of what the term means.

Who said “there is no truth”?

 

[Astrid]

I don't think he's making things up, I think he's saying that if the acceptability of your moral actions is determined by the society around you then you can't say that child sacrifice is wrong. Only that it is wrong for our current society, according to our arbitrary preferences. He's pointing out that you can't universally condemn child sacrifice as wrong, you can only approach it as different. Whereas somebody who holds to the view that there is correct/true morality could universally condemn child sacrifice.

I'm sure he doesn't think so either.

But your version is not what he said
( He even put in the word "literally") and
EVEN IF he actually meant your highly
modified version, he still just made it up.

It's not remotely what I think. It's nonsense,
fabricatedand quite belittling. I've no respect
whatever for such behaviour and I don't know
why you would want to cover for it or excuse it.

 

[Astrid]

Yeah the designer decides the parts that make the computer up. This quote is why I stopped responding, it's such obvious logic that if you couldn't see it I didn't know what the point of continuing was.



If morality is based upon your personal belief then the mugger is just as correct as you if his personal belief is mugging people is alright.

You don't seem to get the idea.

The way morality works is not at either extreme that
you " objective morality from god" people appear to thinkit is


Nor is alternative only the total chaos of no rules, standards,
and morality just being anyhing is ok if anyone feels it is.

Though it's typical of the binary thinking so characteristic
of some religiously biased thinkers.


There is a third way that is neither of those absurd extremes.

You will notice the third way is how the world actually operates.

 

[DaisyDay]

No it may not make that thing known to you, but within your very sentence "my saying that I know that I don’t know [something] doesn’t make that underlying [something] known to me" is the agreement that you don't know something. No matter what you say there will always be an assumption of what you believe to be the case and therefore the truth.

First define "truth"

It's like arguing about the colour of the sky, you both can argue over shades for hours but in the argument that the sky is blue, you have to admit by necessity that you believe it's true that there is a sky. You cannot speak to ANYTHING in existence without this assumption, which is why I used the example of the belief of yourself first existing. This is why the statement "there is no truth" would be self defeating (and not merely semantics), because when you say "there is no truth" you thereby appeal to the truth because the truth would be that there is no truth. I can't figure out how to explain this any clearer and I don't think it's your fault at all, I think I'm genuinely dense lol.

There are at least two recent separate threads arguing about the racial characteristics of mermaids, and that of elves, hobbits and dwarves even though no one in the threads believes that such creatures exist. So, while I do accept that earth's sky currently exists, I have also discussed the color of the sky of the planet Cobol which I do not accept as existing (except in fiction and on film). Just because we might discuss the characteristics of [something] does not mean that the [something] exists for really real in real life.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm sure he doesn't think so either.

But your version is not what he said
( He even put in the word "literally") and
EVEN IF he actually meant your highly
modified version, he still just made it up.

It's not remotely what I think. It's nonsense,
fabricatedand quite belittling. I've no respect
whatever for such behaviour and I don't know
why you would want to cover for it or excuse it.

I didn't "cover" for him, I've been in discussion since page 5 & 6 and I've seen his reasoning, that's why I tried to add exposition and make it a little bit easier to engage.

You don't seem to get the idea.

The way morality works is not at either extreme that
you " objective morality from god" people appear to thinkit is
Nor is alternative only the total chaos of no rules, standards,
and morality just being anyhing is ok if anyone feels it is.
Though it's typical of the binary thinking so characteristic
of some religiously biased thinkers.
There is a third way that is neither of those absurd extremes.
You will notice the third way is how the world actually operates.

In this post I poke some holes in the idea of Agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them and make a case for moral truth which has a universal standard. It's an epistemological issue before it's a behavioral one. Would love to see you answer some of the questions I posed in there because subjective morality has some pretty gruesome implications if followed to it's logical end.
Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

 

[Moral Orel]

(the reason that reason would be authoritative is because something transcendent justifies it as being the case)

That's still circular.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

There are at least two recent separate threads arguing about the racial characteristics of mermaids, and that of elves, hobbits and dwarves even though no one in the threads believes that such creatures exist. So, while I do accept that earth's sky currently exists, I have also discussed the color of the sky of the planet Cobol which I do not accept as existing (except in fiction and on film). Just because we might discuss the characteristics of [something] does not mean that the [something] exists for really real in real life.

While they may not exist as a being, they do exist in real life as fiction. Their existence within this fiction is agreed upon. If they didn't exist within these things you wouldn't be discussing them. That's why I used the sky analogy, in order to talk about the characteristics of the sky, you first have to believe that it's true that the sky exists or may exist.

define Truth

I have many times but I'll do it again. This time I'll give you something with less conditions so it won't be as problematic. Truth is something that exists irregardless of your belief.
Your next question would be "how do we determine such a thing?" to which my answer would be through authoritative reason or in epistemology reason that has justified true belief. Under rationalism & naturalism given that reason stems from your biology and it is by which the thing you come to the conclusions of all your ideas, there exists nothing to justify it but itself. Now I know that circular reasoning isn't a formal fallacy but if you want to dismiss it regarding reason & by extension logic, then all types of circular claims can be made with very little disputation. This is why before I said that Christians axiomatically have the source of their reason based upon faith, thus allowing reason to be justified (doesn't have to be by God though I think it is, just by something transcendent).

If under naturalism & rationalism you do the same & agree that all of your ideas are based upon faith, the faith that reason is correct, you would still have to justify reason by and through reason. Whereas anyone who believes that something transcendent gives it authority, or reason as to why it can be (Justified true belief), they relinquish the need to do so.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That's still circular.

No it's not, it's called justified true belief

 

[Moral Orel]

No it's not, it's called justified true belief

Why is reason justified?
Because God justifies it.
Why does that work?

Whatever answer you give will require using reason. Which is justified by God. Ergo, circular.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why is reason justified?
Because God justifies it.
Why does that work?
Whatever answer you give will require using reason. Which is justified by God. Ergo, circular.

If God is The source of all truth then it's not circular, it's correct but nevertheless God justifying reason makes it's authoritative and able to be used, it relinquishes it as it has justified true belief. What you're saying is the equivalent of calling the answer to why is the sky blue circular. There's JTB for reason under a worldview that accounts for something transcendent to justify it, there isn't under naturalism.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why is reason justified?
Because God justifies it.
Why does that work?

Whatever answer you give will require using reason. Which is justified by God. Ergo, circular.

Also the reason nobody ever makes that claim you did is because it has you calling everything that has justified true belief circular. Which is everything that is considered an 'answer' to a question

Edit: Also to add another dimension to this

This is why before I said that Christians axiomatically have the source of their reason based upon faith, thus allowing reason to be justified (doesn't have to be by God though I think it is, just by something transcendent).

Faith is also another proposition in which you can relinquish the circular nature of justifying reason (not blind faith).

 

[Moral Orel]

it's correct but nevertheless God justifying reason makes it's authoritative and able to be used

'Reason is authoritative because God justifies it.'
'God can justify reason because He is the source of all truth.'
You're using reason to justify reason. Circular.

What you're saying is the equivalent of calling the answer to why is the sky blue circular.

No. Only if your answer is "because blue is the color of the sky" would it be "circular".

That would be a regression problem, not a circular problem. You can't escape the Munchausen Trilemma.

While we can't prove that the Rules of Thought are true, we can assume they're brute facts, and if they really are, then reason really works. If not, reason still acts like it works. If they aren't brute facts then God can do literally anything, even things that are logically impossible like square-circles, and everything becomes entirely arbitrary.

 

[Astrid]

If your reason for holding your beliefs is based upon logic or reason then you need to have a reason as to why those premises are correct or reliable (reason & logic). In Epistemology it's called 'justified true belief' and under a secular framework it's impossible to justify the use of these beyond the statement 'it's all we have', in which case it still remains inherently circular as they rely on themselves to prove themselves true (which is question begging). Every atheist is forced to admit their beliefs are held on faith due to this. Another reason for this would be that you have to assume that you yourself exist before you commit to a single thought. So I'd simply posit that if you have no reason as to why reason is right, how could you justify any claims you make if you remove the possibility of it? (the reason that reason would be authoritative is because something transcendent justifies it as being the case)

" Faith" must have the widest range of meaning of any word.

 

[Astrid]

I didn't "cover" for him, I've been in discussion since page 5 & 6 and I've seen his reasoning, that's why I tried to add exposition and make it a little bit easier to engage.



In this post I poke some holes in the idea of Agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them and make a case for moral truth which has a universal standard. It's an epistemological issue before it's a behavioral one. Would love to see you answer some of the questions I posed in there because subjective morality has some pretty gruesome implications if followed to it's logical end.
Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

What he said about me is baloney.
Simple.