God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[Bradskii]

The solution is that we must necessarily step outside of our (mere) subjective opinion on morality to determine an objective source. For example, if you can determine at least one absolute truth, then you also get the advantage of at least one universal moral truth (to contrast with lies). "Buy One, Get One Free."

If an objective source cannot be determined, then one should be honest enough to admit that morality cannot be determined or does not exist. "Subjective morality" is a contradiction, because morality itself is an objective claim. Ethics are societal; morality is universal. But pop-atheists are generally afraid that if they admit this, then their particular brand of atheism won't "sell." So they push the contradiction instead.

I think that the fact that I could give a reasonable example of two people holding different views on a single matter of morality shows that it is subjective. Your views on a moral matter may well differ to mine. The only way to claim that morality is objective to is decalre that whatever you believe is right and any contrary position is wrong.

Hence, proposing that morality is entirely objective is another way of saying 'I'm always right'.

I guess you could disprove that by telling us of a moral position to which you hold that is wrong.

 

[Paulomycin]

I think that the fact that I could give a reasonable example of two people holding different views on a single matter of morality shows that it is subjective.

Why do you assume they're both right?

Hence, proposing that morality is entirely objective is another way of saying 'I'm always right'.

Or, that there really is an objective morality after all. See, you're omitting that possibility.

I guess you could disprove that by telling us of a moral position to which you hold that is wrong.

You gave a similar challenge once before, and then completely ignored it when I actually answered it at length. Besides, you're either requesting a contradiction, or you're not trying to effectively communicate. I can tell you of "moral positions" I've held in the past that turned out to be wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Why do you assume they're both right?



Or, that there really is an objective morality after all. See, you're omitting that possibility.



You gave a similar challenge once before, and then completely ignored it when I actually answered it at length. Besides, you're either requesting a contradiction, or you're not trying to effectively communicate. I can tell you of "moral positions" I've held in the past that turned out to be wrong.

I assume that one of them is wrong (tbey could both be wrong). But they both think that they are right.

And if there is an objective reality and we hold different views, then how do we tell? I'm suggesting that if you hold to objectivity then you would claim your view to be the objectively correct one.

Otherwise...you say that I'm right?

And hey, finding out that you were actually wrong all along doesn't change the question. How do we tell if it's objective at the time? I'm suggesting that if you hold to objectivity then you would claim your view to be the objectively correct one.

So pony up. What do you hold to be an objective moral truth that is wrong?

 

[Paulomycin]

I assume that one of them is wrong (tbey could both be wrong). But they both think that they are right.

Then further steps must be taken, which was my point all along.

And if there is an objective reality and we hold different views, then how do we tell? I'm suggesting that if you hold to objectivity then you would claim your view to be the objectively correct one.

I just told you one way to do it.

So pony up. What do you hold to be an objective moral truth that is wrong?

Why do you assume this question still makes any sense? And no, it's not because you feel you can get a petty "gotcha" in. It has to be something more rational.

 

[Paulomycin]

So pony up. What do you hold to be an objective moral truth that is wrong?

Another thought: "I really hope Brad realizes that morality is unfalsifiable."

 

[disciple Clint]

Both. It will not matter what I think about Jesus if I am not convinced that God is good. So if you want you can start there maybe in a different thread.

OK start the thread with your questions and I will respond, others will also respond so you should get some very usable information.

 

[Bradskii]

Then further steps must be taken, which was my point all along.

I just told you one way to do it.

That was 'to step outside' and consult an objective morality (which is assuming that which we need to discover - but we'll let that slide).

So you do that and it either aligns with what you believe or it doesn't. So can you give me an example of what you believe that does not align with the obective morality as you have determined?

If it always aligns then we needn't go the extra step to 'consult the oracle'. We can just ask you. You'll always be right. If it doesn't align then you believe things true which are objectively false (or vica versa). Which doesn't make sense.

Back to you.

 

[Bradskii]

Another thought: "I really hope Brad realizes that morality is unfalsifiable."

Falsifying morality would be showing that it didn't exist. I think that you mean that a moral position is unfalsifiable. Which, as it's relative, is perfectly correct.

 

[Paulomycin]

That was 'to step outside' and consult an objective morality (which is assuming that which we need to discover - but we'll let that slide).

You can't discover anything if you don't want to.

So you do that and it either aligns with what you believe or it doesn't. So can you give me an example of what you believe that does not align with the obective morality as you have determined?

If growth, wisdom, and maturity are possible, why can't you phrase the question in the past tense, "What did you once believe that did not align with objective morality?" How's that? Wh

If it always aligns then we needn't go the extra step to 'consult the oracle'. We can just ask you. You'll always be right. If it doesn't align then you believe things true which are objectively false (or vica versa). Which doesn't make sense.

No, because I always consult the oracle. Your 1st mistake was assuming that I'm the source of my own moral claims.

 

[Paulomycin]

Falsifying morality would be showing that it didn't exist.

Falsification does not mean "false," it means "able to be demonstrated as false."

Morality itself is an unfalsifiable category altogether.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

OK start the thread with your questions and I will respond, others will also respond so you should get some very usable information.

Last time I started a thread about gods goodness I was banned for a month. Funny thing is I wanted to discuss a book by a Christian apologist but the book title was the in violation. So i probably won’t start that thread. Questioning gods goodness is not allowed here I guess.

 

[Paulomycin]

Last time I started a thread about gods goodness I was banned for a month.

Why?

Funny thing is I wanted to discuss a book by a Christian apologist but the book title was the in violation. So i probably won’t start that thread. Questioning gods goodness is not allowed here I guess.

I'm sure if they had a rule they'd actually state it. What if I wanted to discuss the book?

 

[Bradskii]

No, because I always consult the oracle. Your 1st mistake was assuming that I'm the source of my own moral claims.

So you're always right. As I said, there's no need for me to travel to Delphi or check out goat entrails. I can just ask you.

What happened that time you found out you were wrong? Bad info? Crossed lines? Made your own mind up?

I'll have to hope it was the last option. I don't want to rely on you if the system is shonky.

 

[Bradskii]

Falsification does not mean "false," it means "able to be demonstrated as false."

Morality itself is an unfalsifiable category altogether.

May I expand that for clarification?

'The principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour cannot be demonstrated as false'.

Sorry. Makes less sense than it did before.

 

[Paulomycin]

May I expand that for clarification?

'The principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour cannot be demonstrated as false'.

Sorry. Makes less sense than it did before.

May I correct this for clarification?

'The principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour are not able to be demonstrated as false'.

 

[Paulomycin]

So you're always right. As I said, there's no need for me to travel to Delphi or check out goat entrails. I can just ask you.

What happened that time you found out you were wrong? Bad info? Crossed lines? Made your own mind up?

I'll have to hope it was the last option. I don't want to rely on you if the system is shonky.

There's nothing wrong with consulting an objective source of right.

Bad info.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why?



I'm sure if they had a rule they'd actually state it. What if I wanted to discuss the book?

I can PM you the book if you want.

 

[Paulomycin]

I can PM you the book if you want.

Please do. Appreciated.

 

[Kylie]

Y'know, on second thought, I'm just going to decline from answering this ...

Indeed.

 

[disciple Clint]

Last time I started a thread about gods goodness I was banned for a month. Funny thing is I wanted to discuss a book by a Christian apologist but the book title was the in violation. So i probably won’t start that thread. Questioning gods goodness is not allowed here I guess.

OK then simply ask "what are the characteristics of God". I do not think you can get in trouble by asking that question.