Failed arguments

[secondtimearound]

Ah, yes. The objective morals/moral authority.

Those don't exist, so there's that...

Says you Why would evolution, something only concerned with the four f's, be concerned about morality? Of course evolution is a blind natural process and not concerned about anything. There is no reason to believe on evolutionary foundations alone that right or wrong exist. But they do. What say you?

 

[Non sequitur]

Says you Why would evolution, something only concerned with the four f's, be concerned about morality? Of course evolution is a blind natural process and not concerned about anything. There is no reason to believe on evolutionary foundations alone that right or wrong exist. But they do. What say you?

They do?

 

[secondtimearound]

They do?

You betcha, but you said they don't, so what are your reasons to say they don't? Remember who said what first here.

 

[Non sequitur]

Every soul is aware of something deep inside.

Mhm.

 

[Non sequitur]

You betcha, but you said they don't, so what are your reasons to say they don't? Remember who said what first here.

What did I say about evolution and objective morals?

 

[secondtimearound]

You said:

Ah, yes. The objective morals/moral authority.

Those don't exist, so there's that...

No sense in knit picking. You wanna have a serious conversation? If you want to state then that objective moral values don't exist then fine, if I representing you via a strawman then fine, stop beating around the bush and let's get into this.

 

[Non sequitur]

You said:

Ah, yes. The objective morals/moral authority.

Those don't exist, so there's that...

No sense in knit picking. You wanna have a serious conversation? If you want to state then that objective moral values don't exist then fine, if I representing you via a strawman then fine, stop beating around the bush and let's get into this.

Whoa there.

I was seriously asking if I said anything about evolution. I didn't think I did, so I asked.

So...

Alright, how can you tell objective morals from subjective morals?

 

[secondtimearound]

This is an epistimological question, we are having an ontological disscussion and not relevant the existence of of objective morals. If someone has a hard time telling the difference between objective truths and subjective truths does it mean neither exist? Well of course not. All I have to do is show that one or more objective truths ring true. So what are your reasons to say they don't exist as you claimed earlier?

 

[Non sequitur]

This is an epistimological question, we are having an ontological disscussion and not relevant the existence of of objective morals. If someone has a hard time telling the difference between objective truths and subjective truths does it mean neither exist? Well of course not. All I have to do is show that one or more objective truths ring true. So what are your reasons to say they don't exist as you claimed earlier?

Knowing of one, by separating it from subjective, that kind will exist. Otherwise, how are you going to be able to define it, if it mirrors it exactly?

(This would also, actually, be a reason.)

 

[secondtimearound]

I will say it one more time, you are presenting a question of epistimology, not ontology, therefore presenting me with a red herring. But do you not see the fault in your own question? If a subjective truth mirrors that of an objective truth than the subjective believes in the objective because it is objective. However this is as far as I am taking this as I will not take part in fallacy unless a product of my own ignorance and in this case I am not ignorant to the fallacy being presented. You know the difference between objective and subjective? Shall we carry on?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Debating proves God.

 

[secondtimearound]

Debating proves God.

I don't think so. It mearly shows that we have a logical basis for our belief and are not a bunch of moronic, delusional, sycophants that we have been portrayed. God cannot be proven through argument, only through experience.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Our brains proves God.

 

[secondtimearound]

Our brains proves God.

I wish it was that easy, I really do, but it's not. Or is it? I believe proof of G-d lies within ourselves, if you seek He will show you what you need to believe and that is as simple as it gets. But to say your brain is proof of G-d is really a non-starter as an argument.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I wish it was that easy, I really do, but it's not. Or is it? I believe proof of G-d lies within ourselves, if you seek He will show you what you need to believe and that is as simple as it gets. But to say your brain is proof of G-d is really a non-starter as an argument.

In that case, maybe our brains are just products of chance & time.

 

[secondtimearound]

Maybe and maybe God is just a product of wish fullfillment like Freud suggested and maybe Jesus never existed as some people also try to suggest. I wish I could believe that. I wish I could believe that G-d was not real, that Christianity wasn't real and that I could merrily go about doing what I want to do like before, but I can't. Why? Because I have experienced G-d. Why did I experience Him, because I sought Him and He delivered on His promise.

Belief for me is a properly basic belief that is outside of argument. Most people who believe in G-d do not have an argument for His existence. We believe because we experience and NO ONE can take that away from us. The non-believers have no experience to go on, thier belief is not properly basic, it is contrived from thier own reason and as such is limited by that. It would take someone a lifetime to learn philosophy and to study the arguments. 99.99 percent of all people who have ever lived will never be able to do that. Experience my friend, that is what it is all about.

 

[quatona]

Our hate for evil proves God.

Yeah, that would be an example for a failed argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

Deep inside people know between right & wrong regardless of what they do.

Ignoring the differences by pretending people who disagree with you are lying isn't the most persuasive approach I could imagine.

 

[variant]

Deep inside people know between right & wrong regardless of what they do.

Unsupported conjecture.

Your argument has failed.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Unsupported conjecture.

My conjecture is supported by everybody: even by you: deep inside we all know it.