If God asks....

[Skavau]

May I quote you on that?

Yes.

I'm sure you'll strawman it though, but I'll be there waiting.

 

[Crandaddy]

You're not. But you can't use invented details that you can't support from the text.

What gives you the right to tell me how I can or can't interpret the Bible--not as an historical text, but as Divinely-inspired Scripture?

No evidence in the bible. Nice try.

I find it rather odd that God doesn't provide a lamb for Abraham to sacrifice in Isaac's stead, but rather a ram. Why doesn't God give him a lamb to sacrifice? This makes a bit more sense in light of the New Testament, wherein Jesus is called “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Does this prove that the lamb to which Abraham is referring is the Messiah? Of course not. But it does lend some support.

Excellent. Euthyphro dilemma, anyone?

So that's it? You just shout “Euthyphro dilemma” and you're done? I suppose you think this passes as intellectual rigor?

Actually no, what you're doing is charitably known as "making stuff up." Not quite the same. Until you can supply support for your fiction, your interpretation of what went on with Abraham and Isaac is no more valid than mine.

Actually, yes it is. For both ease of reference and difficulty of misrepresentation, I'll reproduce what originally I wrote (to Gadarene, by the way, not to you):

But don't forget that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If to issue an order is to intend that the recipient of that order understand what he or she is ordered to do, then I think it follows that to receive an order from God is necessarily to understand what one is ordered to do (since God cannot fail at what he intends to accomplish).

I'm explaining to Gadarene what I take to be a straightforward implication of the conjunction of omniscience together with omnipotence within the same agent, viz., that such an agent can't possibly fail to accomplish anything he attempts, and that if to issue an order is to intend that that order be understood, then it follows that an order from such an agent cannot (possibly) be misunderstood.

Nowhere here do Abraham, Isaac, or anything else Biblical come into play. I am making a philosophical claim, as would be crystal clear to anyone who has even a very vague familiarity with analytic philosophy.

So which is it: Are you philosophically incompetent, or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?

Don't sell yourself short - you're doing pretty well so far.

Addressed to my straw man double, of course.

Right. All those women they raped, all those little children they murdered, all those little infants they skewered. Such monsters. Are you assuming the Israelites had no sense of morals? Wow.

I am not defending what the Israelites did. But we should also remember that these people didn't have the learning that we moderns enjoy, and for this reason, the severity of their offense MIGHT (I cannot emphasize this strongly enough) be mitigated somewhat.

Where is any evidence that it should be taken any other way?

So you're saying that there's no plausible way to interpret this passage except to say that God exists and that he ordered the extermination of the Amalekites? This would make you a dystheist, it seems. Interesting.

Actually, I'd say that (if this episode actually happened) the Israelites simply went and slaughtered a bunch of people they didn't like, and some historian merely gave it a theological gloss some time after the fact.

You know, you don't have to use God to explain everything.

Great. So god orders the genocide of the Amalekites just to make a point? Murdering all those little infants to make a point?

He didn't order the genocide of the Amalekites (so I say), although he evidently was believed by the ancient Israelites to have ordered it.

I mean, I'm perfectly happy that you've decided to abandon the bible as a reliable guide to, well, pretty much anything, if you can just decide arbitrarily that any story in it is just a lesson. I love that one about the resurrection. What's that a lesson for?

Christians believe that the Incarnation is the most important event that has ever occurred in all of history, and for this reason the four canonical Gospels are the most important books of all of Christian Scripture. In fact, in many Christian churches (my own included), only the book of the Gospels (and not the entirety of Scripture) is placed upon the Holy Altar, and the Gospel lesson is the only Scripture reading for which the entire congregation is expected to stand in reverence (if able) during the liturgy.

The purpose of the word of God (sacred Scripture) is to make known the Word of God (the Incarnate Divine Logos, Jesus Christ), and it is in light of the Incarnation that we interpret all of the Bible within the context of Divine revelation. Sacred exegesis is not necessarily coextensive with the exegesis of modern secular scholarship.

 

[Max S Cherry]

In some ways, yes. This is not an inherent quality though. The word 'respect' derives meaning from us and it is subjective. It is a value we individually assign to others based on our evaluation of their character. I might find person X worthy of a lot of respect whereas you might find them worthy of only a small amount of respect or vice versa.

It can also be enhanced or lost through action.


No. They then lose respect.


All it tells me is that you view God as worthy of obedience inherently. It does not tell me why you view him worthy of this or why certain actions cannot make him lose the title.

Well I was hoping we could agree that humans are worthy of respect. At the least, I was hoping that you could understand what I mean when I say that God has a quality that I consider to be "worthy of obedience." We will just have to say that we are not going to get anywhere on this issue, and unfortunately, it will have a limiting effect on other issues being discussed.

Does not matter to me. Shouldn't matter to anyone. He is still a sentient being. He can still make decisions that we can judge.

It matters immensely, but because of the limitation mentioned above, it matters only to me.

By this reasoning the statement "Murder is wrong" is just as objective because it applies to all and in equal measures. Murder is wrong leaves no room for interpretation or differing culture. It would apply to all in even measures.

I agree that the statement is objective. Is there a point you wish to make with it?

You might very well be consistent all of the time if you say "Whatever God does is right and we should follow him" but there's no argument there that makes that moral. We only have your assertion that it is.

I am not trying to convince you that God is moral. I was explaining why I would do what God commanded, unless I failed Him. You do not believe that God possesses the qualities that I believe He has, so in light of that, we will not agree.

No.
A mass murdering rapist is though. Frightening to know you're merely one delusion away from being one.

I hate to let you in on it, but we are all merely one delusion away from being one.

This is a circular argument.

How is it universal?

If you wish to know the answer to this question, all you need to do is stop separating the posts. I already told you why it is universal.

I could assert anything that would be the same for everyone but that would not make it objective.

How would it not?

Yes, so you are basically all about power. You just incorrectly conflate it with morality.

In my opinion, it just so happens that God is the source of power and the source of morality. So it is not incorrect.

Yes, that is the poison of theistic pseudo-morality. It makes otherwise normal people say wicked things and worse it makes them proud of their own vileness. I mean, honestly, you with complete nonchalance declared you'd be a mass murderer if God told you to.

And my actions would be morally correct.

Yes you do. According to you nothing is wrong because of the consequences of the action but because God has forbidden it. Nothing is right because of the action either but only because God endorses it. That is nothing if not directly saying that the consequences of your actions don't at all matter.

The consequences of my actions do matter, because they have to be in line with God's will. It is the same as with the morality you espouse. You oppose certain actions because the consequences would cause pain or suffering; therefore, your actions have to be in line with the principle that you should cause no pain or suffering. Why do you not see that this is the same?

You're not just saying it hypothetically. You've spent the last several pages telling me you outright do that.

I have not spent pages saying such. I have said that God's will is the basis for my morality. If God were different, I would have to detach the action, but it might be that, if God were different, I would be different as well. The detachment might be entirely unnecessary.

How fortunate for all of us that he is currently benign to you. I am genuinely scared for others if you begin to hear a voice you interpret as God.

How fortunate for all of us that God is never benign but is always benevolent.

Do I need to add to this? It speaks for itself.

Might equals right.

I already said that.

Simply asserting that because something is consistent that it is objective is just ridiculous. That would mean if someone universalised anything it would be objective.

If it is universal, it is free from subjective interpretation, and in the case of morality, it creates the ought that you mentioned earlier. If that is not objective, how about you tell me what would make a thing objective.

No they don't. Not all morality is prescribed by law. Many forms of behaviour deemed unethical is entirely legal. People have their own self-restraints as well that derive from their own conscience.

I would venture to say that morality is untouched by the law. A behavior being deemed unethical has nothing to do with its being moral or not. People have consciences, and I do not know of anything that is more subjective.

Additionally there are substantial differences between you and me regarding why we follow moral ideals. I follow them because I accept them. You follow them just because you're told to.

I follow them because I accept them. There is no difference between us in our reasons for following our moralities. We are both told what to do. I am told by God, and you are told by yourself. Either of us is free to decide to not follow.

It is completely accurate. No-one alive has ever or will ever wish for an act to be inflicted upon them without their consent, or suffer harm upon themselves without their consent.

Wow. You possess a lot of information. I will say no more on that.

Yes, that is why the operative word is consent. A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] may enjoy certain fetishes but that's fine, that is his or her prerogative.

And you purpose to know this about a person without having ever spoken to the person. You purpose to know a great deal.

No, it requires people to understand when someone else asks them to stop doing X to them because it is inflicting against their personal freedom.

If you are already doing X to them, you have acted immorally. You seem to have a post hoc morality.

Also it is of note that your presumed morality is one that requires each agent to know what God wills. In the 1970's the UK was blighted by a serial killer named Peter Sutcliffe. He killed thirteen women and in his defense claimed God ordered him to do it. What do you say to that? That he was wrong? How would you know? How would he know? This is also not the only time historically this kind of thing has happened.

If you are asking me if I support murder, the answer is no. If you are asking me whether I believe he was wrong, the answer is yes. I do not know that he was wrong, but I believe that he was.

I call that freedom. People deciding for themselves what paths are for them and what paths are not. That is superior in every way to the hateful idea that we should always just follow God.

I call that freedom as well, but I also call it subjective. How you consider it to be hateful to follow a loving God is beyond me. You presented a hypothetical in which God would not necessarily be loving, but as He is, He is loving. I am left to assume that you are referring to your hypothetical when gauging the superiority.

Yes I will.

For a start, they can tell me.

I do not think that you actually intend for your moral system to rest on people telling each other what they do and do not consent to, and I do not think that you would even attempt to call this an objective morality.

Some obvious answers would be attempting to have sex with them without their consent. I may not have known prior they were not interested but I would do soon afterwards.

I would say that you had already acted immorally by attempting to engage in sex with someone without already knowing whether you had their consent or not.

This might be true sometimes but certainly not always. Additionally even if partially true it is nothing that cannot be rectified. You will need to give examples.

I need to give examples of how it can be rectified? I do not see any way for it to be rectified, because it cannot be rectified on a case by case basis. It has to be rectified for all people, or it is reduced to subjectivity again.

All morality depends on the consent of others. It is a communal phenomena.

An objective morality does not depend on the consent of others. A moral action is moral even if no one consents. A morality that depends on consent is dependent upon interpretation, and it is not objective.

Your "morality" cannot be held to be under any sensible definition as moral.

This is your opinion. I disagree.

What a load of nonsense.

According to you in the event of God ordering mass murder my disagreement would make me immoral. Up is down, left is right and murder is righteous in your world.

Why is it nonsense? If God’s will is the basis for morality, your disagreement with His will must make you immoral. Why do you not see that?

Someone disagreeing with me on an issue does not constitute an infliction of pain, suffering or oppression from me. If I attempted by force to compel them to do something then that would be an infliction.

Someone disagreeing with you does not make an infliction, but someone disagreeing with an action that you are already taking in regards to them does make an infliction. It is, according to your morality, an immoral action until you change course.

Only of course if you think pain, suffering and oppression have no meaningful definition. Of course given that you think morality is nothing but a singular self-obsessed obedience towards God I would not be surprised on that.

They have meaningful definitions, but they are not understood by all people in equal measures or in the same ways. Morality without obedience is not morality. Your morality, if you did not have obedience to it, would be of no use to you or anyone else.

Yes, I am. I am appealing to everyone's instincts.
Uh, yes I am. That is exactly what respecting people's right to run their own affairs and not have their liberty controlled by another is. I could do little more intellectually to account for individual differences.

Respecting a person’s right to run their own affairs is not an issue in question. You can respect a person’s right to do as they please while insisting that everyone has the right. If rights collide, what happens? It is at that point that morality must dictate what is right. When two or more people have opposing views and those views do not allow for each to continue, one has to give way to the other. If one person believes that certain people are to be subjugated and another person believes that they are not to be subjugated, morality must determine who is right. If it does not, it is subjective. You attempt to account for individual differences, and by doing so, you force your morality into subjectivity. You cannot allow each person to determine right and wrong and expect to have an objective morality.

Yes, there are. Sorry. If you think suffering is equivalent to disagreement, you are wrong. If you think liberty involves totalitarianism, you are wrong.

I am sorry if you think that disagreement is not a form of suffering, as it clearly is. To some, liberty does involve totalitarianism. I think your absolute statements are incorrect.

That's not a common ground. It is only, at best (if true) reference to the fact that God exists and demands our attention. Do you even know what common ground means?

Because of the limitation mentioned earlier, we will not agree here.

You have claimed it and made a parody of objective morality. I do not know what else to say.

I suppose there is nothing left to be said here.

No, it is assertive. The consistency is irrelevant.

I could declare that the colour blue is evil. It is a consistent claim. It does not change. Does not make it objective.

I am not sure that is the same type of assertion. If a system of morality has as its basis “that which you will is right” and if you willed that “wearing blue is evil,” wearing blue would be objectively wrong. It would not matter whether anyone disagreed with you, but you would have to believe in a being having the quality of worthiness of obedience. We know that it is not the case.

Why do you not agree with my proposed basis for morality?

I disagree with it because it is subjective and reduces morality to nothing more than personal feelings.

 

[Davian]

It is.

If you understand that to be the source of all definitions, I did indeed.

No, just your definitions. Definitions of words are typically descriptive of how they are commonly used, not "pulled from thin air".

No, I do not think it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun, but I fully agree that it cannot be proven. I do think that the notion is useful for sending space probes to other planets.

So you are now redefining "notion" to what would, in common use, be "fact"?

Just because I see facts as proven tidbits and doubt our ability to achieve that level of certainty does not mean that I fail to see the utility of acting as if they are proven or as if they may be accurate. I am fully aware of the state of life for one who must live without certainty, and it is a useless state.

You do appear to be in it.

 

[Max S Cherry]

No, just your definitions. Definitions of words are typically descriptive of how they are commonly used, not "pulled from thin air".

If you do not mind, will you please tell me what you understand the difference between "fact" and "belief" to be? Perhaps, I will agree, and we can move beyond this discussion of definitions.

So you are now redefining "notion" to what would, in common use, be "fact"?

Kindly forget that I used the word "notion." I have no desire to get into another definition dispute. Let us work out the first one before we move on to another. Agreed?

You do appear to be in it.

No sir. I am not in it any longer, but I remember it well. If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not. If we can speak of possibilities, I can accept anything.

 

[Tomk80]

No sir. I am not in it any longer, but I remember it well. If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not. If we can speak of possibilities, I can accept anything.

How about not speaking of possibilities, but of probabilities? Everything might be possible, but of that said of everything relatively few things are probable.

 

[Max S Cherry]

How about not speaking of possibilities, but of probabilities? Everything might be possible, but of that said of everything relatively few things are probable.

I would caution against paying too much attention to probabilities due to the uncertainty of percentages. I can agree that of all possibilities it is probably a good bet that they are not equally probable. The problems I see with using probabilities instead of possibilities are:

A percentage of likelihood must be assigned to each possibility without any reliable means of assessing the individual possibility's actual likelihood.

After assigning the percentage of likeliness, we would be in basically the same position, because the less probable could still be correct. There could be a 10% chance of rain and a 50% chance of snow, and it could rain. There could be a 10% chance of rain and a 90% chance of no rain, and it could rain.

Even in the face of a preponderance of evidence pointing toward one probability, there is no reason why the less probable could not be correct.

I find that possibilities provide the best grounds for discussing most topics. I am not opposed to limiting possibilities for the purpose of a particular discussion though, so if you have some limitations in mind, let us know what they are or might be.

 

[Skavau]

Well I was hoping we could agree that humans are worthy of respect. At the least, I was hoping that you could understand what I mean when I say that God has a quality that I consider to be "worthy of obedience."

We're worthy of rights.

I know that you assert that God is "worthy of obedience". That's all. That you choose to call it a quality is your prerogative. You are yet to significantly substantiate it.

It matters immensely, but because of the limitation mentioned above, it matters only to me.

It matters to you because you care about who says something and not why or the what that something is. I care about the content of actions and not who commands them.

I agree that the statement is objective. Is there a point you wish to make with it?

That objective morality, by your own reasoning can exist in principle in a non-theistic context.

I am not trying to convince you that God is moral. I was explaining why I would do what God commanded, unless I failed Him. You do not believe that God possesses the qualities that I believe He has, so in light of that, we will not agree.

Actually beyond self-interest and wanting to avoid his wrath I'm not quite sure why you would do what God commanded no matter what.

I hate to let you in on it, but we are all merely one delusion away from being one.

You let yourself be suckered in by delusion. You appease it, suggesting it could actually be real. That I consider rape and murder wrong at all times means that even if deluded, I would not do it.

If you wish to know the answer to this question, all you need to do is stop separating the posts. I already told you why it is universal.

You said that it is objective because it is universal which is because it is objective because it is universal. This is circular.

How would it not?

Because simply asserting something does not make it objective. If you are though agreeing with me here then you effectively concede your original point: Objective morality can by your own reasoning can exist independently of God.

P.S: Speaking for myself, I don't frame morality as "subjective vs. objective". I find the entire distinction completely pointless.

In my opinion, it just so happens that God is the source of power and the source of morality. So it is not incorrect.

You saying that God is the "source of morality" is identical to you saying he is the "source of power". When you use the term "moral" you deprive it of all meaning.

And my actions would be morally correct.

So you'd believe. You've made that abundantly clear.

The consequences of my actions do matter, because they have to be in line with God's will.

It would be only correct to say that you consider one's motive in how they act as in line with God's will. The consequence to humanity is completely irrelevant to you.

It is the same as with the morality you espouse. You oppose certain actions because the consequences would cause pain or suffering; therefore, your actions have to be in line with the principle that you should cause no pain or suffering. Why do you not see that this is the same?

The consequences towards humans suspected or known influence why I would support or condemn an act. My own moral assertions are directly influenced by what the implications towards the suffering of others are. Yours are not. You could not care less. The only thing that matters to you is whether God commands it.

I have not spent pages saying such. I have said that God's will is the basis for my morality. If God were different, I would have to detach the action, but it might be that, if God were different, I would be different as well. The detachment might be entirely unnecessary.

The only reason you say murder is wrong is because you believe God has forbidden it. Same with rape, torture, theft and all forms of contemptible actions. The way you think has already detached it.

How fortunate for all of us that God is never benign but is always benevolent.

What a semantically useless statement, coming from you. You would always call God benevolent no matter what he decided to do. If he ordered the rape of all women you would still call him benevolent and call us fortunate.

Any word you use to describe how good God is pointless. We already know where you stand on this.

I already said that.

Yes, I just wanted your statement of allegiance to a potential "warring, vengeful" God was out there and in the open. I always did wonder both in fiction and reality how people would become so willingly stooges and right-hand men to obviously evil dictators and you're demonstrating to my horror the existence of that mentality.

If it is universal, it is free from subjective interpretation, and in the case of morality, it creates the ought that you mentioned earlier. If that is not objective, how about you tell me what would make a thing objective.

In the case of moral assertion? Nothing. I don't subscribe to the distinction of subjective vs. objective. Moral assertions are behavioural standards based on how we ought and ought not treat others. They can be no more objective that say, a favourite colour*.

*I await for Elioenai or perhaps even Max here to misinterpret this.

I would venture to say that morality is untouched by the law. A behavior being deemed unethical has nothing to do with its being moral or not. People have consciences, and I do not know of anything that is more subjective.

Inform me precisely the distinction you're making between ethics and morality.

I follow them because I accept them. There is no difference between us in our reasons for following our moralities.

No, you follow God for self-interest? It isn't clear why you accept God for reasons other than that. I am moral and can be moral at the expense of my own self-gain. That sir is what morality is actually about and the only time that it is actually meaningful.

We are both told what to do. I am told by God, and you are told by yourself. Either of us is free to decide to not follow.

This comes across as semantically useless as the idea that atheists worship themselves, or worship hedonism. You're just invoking comparisons where they do not belong. I infer what I ought or ought not do through observation of how my behaviour could effect others and I do this taking into account individual needs and preferences. This is not to say that I always follow my understanding of it in this matter, but I certainly am influenced more times than not to do so.

Wow. You possess a lot of information. I will say no more on that.

It is true by definition. No-one alive wants an act inflicted upon they do not like without their consent.

And you purpose to know this about a person without having ever spoken to the person. You purpose to know a great deal.

Do you even know what a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is? Do you even know the difference between a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] receiving pain and a regular person receiving pain? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] might ask for some pain to be inflicted and thus would consent. A normal person would not.

If you are already doing X to them, you have acted immorally. You seem to have a post hoc morality.

Intent matters. If you were doing something to someone that you did not know would hurt them then you were misinformed or ignorant. You can take a level of responsibility for that, of course. What matters is that you should stop when you know it is against their consent.

If you are asking me if I support murder, the answer is no. If you are asking me whether I believe he was wrong, the answer is yes. I do not know that he was wrong, but I believe that he was.

Why?

If he was genuinely contacted by God you would be here vindicating him now. This is what is frightening.

I call that freedom as well, but I also call it subjective. How you consider it to be hateful to follow a loving God is beyond me.

I consider it hateful to follow a "warring, vengeful" God which is what you'd say you'd be perfectly willing to do. I consider it hateful to defend rape and murder if endorsed by God.

You presented a hypothetical in which God would not necessarily be loving, but as He is, He is loving.

Meaningless.

If God demanded you to murder, rape and pillage you would still call him loving and you'd still do it.

I am left to assume that you are referring to your hypothetical when gauging the superiority.

This is true, but I'm always referring to your disgusting willingness to follow the hypothetical and why my morality is superior to yours concerning that.

I do not think that you actually intend for your moral system to rest on people telling each other what they do and do not consent to, and I do not think that you would even attempt to call this an objective morality.

We already do this. In most secular nations such things as human rights exist which were built principally to eradicate systematic oppression of groups and individuals and allow them to forge their own paths in life.

I would say that you had already acted immorally by attempting to engage in sex with someone without already knowing whether you had their consent or not.

Sometimes this would be true. Not always. Making a pass at someone is not exactly immoral.

I need to give examples of how it can be rectified? I do not see any way for it to be rectified, because it cannot be rectified on a case by case basis. It has to be rectified for all people, or it is reduced to subjectivity again.

No, you need to give examples of how you could accidentally oppress someone to the point where you could not back down (as you seem to be suggesting).

An objective morality does not depend on the consent of others.

Then it cannot reasonably be called morality.

A moral action is moral even if no one consents. A morality that depends on consent is dependent upon interpretation, and it is not objective.

You use that word "moral". I do not think you have a meaning for it beyond power.

This is your opinion. I disagree.

Of course it is my opinion. Would you rather I argue another opinion?

Why is it nonsense? If God’s will is the basis for morality, your disagreement with His will must make you immoral. Why do you not see that?

Yet you haven't produced a substantial argument for why his will is the basis of morality. You've simply said that because it is consistent it is "objective" and yet any edict on anything can be just as equally consistent.

Someone disagreeing with you does not make an infliction, but someone disagreeing with an action that you are already taking in regards to them does make an infliction.

Perhaps. Give examples please. Not sure what you mean by infliction.

They have meaningful definitions, but they are not understood by all people in equal measures or in the same ways. Morality without obedience is not morality. Your morality, if you did not have obedience to it, would be of no use to you or anyone else.

My moral understanding is designed to take into account the differences of individuals. Yours is not. Just because you have a binary outlook does not make yours credible.

Respecting a person’s right to run their own affairs is not an issue in question.

It is for you. If God told you to murder anyone who was homosexual, you would regardless of their desires. What do you think of hell, by the way? Do you think all non-Christians are going to be tormented there forever?

You can respect a person’s right to do as they please while insisting that everyone has the right. If rights collide, what happens?

We work out a solution. Give examples.

It is at that point that morality must dictate what is right. When two or more people have opposing views and those views do not allow for each to continue, one has to give way to the other.

What kind of opposing views are you referring to?

If one person believes that certain people are to be subjugated and another person believes that they are not to be subjugated, morality must determine who is right.

Yes, we side with those that would be subjugated. This should be obvious. No-one wants to be subjugated. We can all infer rationally that none of us would like to have our rights removed and our freedoms limited and thus infer that we should not do it without sufficient and justified cause to others. This realisation in no way inhibits the right of potential oppressors. There is no right codified in rational legislation that grants individuals the right to subjugate others.

You attempt to account for individual differences, and by doing so, you force your morality into subjectivity. You cannot allow each person to determine right and wrong and expect to have an objective morality.

Someone's right to run their own show ends when it inflicts upon the right to run their own show. This is not hard. This is 101 human rights.

I am sorry if you think that disagreement is not a form of suffering, as it clearly is.

No, it isn't "clearly".

To some, liberty does involve totalitarianism. I think your absolute statements are incorrect.

Then it isn't liberty. By definition.

Do words actually mean anything to you?

Because of the limitation mentioned earlier, we will not agree here.

I will take that as a no, you don't know what common ground means.

I am not sure that is the same type of assertion. If a system of morality has as its basis “that which you will is right” and if you willed that “wearing blue is evil,” wearing blue would be objectively wrong. It would not matter whether anyone disagreed with you, but you would have to believe in a being having the quality of worthiness of obedience. We know that it is not the case.

I'll let the above lunacy stand on its own. Even if I had the mythical quality of "worthiness of obedience" it would not be right to ban or argue for the ban of the colour blue.

I disagree with it because it is subjective and reduces morality to nothing more than personal feelings.

You have not understand what I'm arguing then, at all. My moral understanding makes direct reference to the common ground in all human self-interest.

 

[Davian]

If you do not mind, will you please tell me what you understand the difference between "fact" and "belief" to be? Perhaps, I will agree, and we can move beyond this discussion of definitions.

A belief is an opinion, or conviction; it may or may not be supportable by facts. A scientist may believe that humans share an ancestor with a carrot. That belief could be supported by the fact that humans and carrots share DNA.
The Cassini mission to Saturn used a gravity slingshot to save fuel on its trip, made possible by the fact that the Earth orbits the sun. Gravity assist would not work if the earth was stationary, in a geocentric solar system.

Kindly forget that I used the word "notion." I have no desire to get into another definition dispute. Let us work out the first one before we move on to another. Agreed?

If you are not going to use common convention, I can only take the meanings of the words you use from their context.

No sir. I am not in it any longer, but I remember it well. If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not. If we can speak of possibilities, I can accept anything.

Conflating "fact" with "proven" is not "suggesting". What do you mean by "certainty"? Should I use "uncertainty"? That scientists can use this "uncertainty" to send a robotic vehicle over 2 billion miles, hit an orbital window about the size of a football field, and land a probe on the moon on another planet? That this "uncertainty" can be used to build the technology for the computer you are using to post at this web site?

 

[Max S Cherry]

You are yet to significantly substantiate it.

And since this is opinion versus opinion, substantiation is not applicable.

Actually beyond self-interest and wanting to avoid his wrath I'm not quite sure why you would do what God commanded no matter what.

I have already said that it is out of love and respect.

You let yourself be suckered in by delusion. You appease it, suggesting it could actually be real. That I consider rape and murder wrong at all times means that even if deluded, I would not do it.

That you pretend to know what you would and would not do if you were delusional means either that you do not want to admit the truth or that you cannot see it.

You said that it is objective because it is universal which is because it is objective because it is universal. This is circular.

And my explanation did not stop there.

Because simply asserting something does not make it objective. If you are though agreeing with me here then you effectively concede your original point: Objective morality can by your own reasoning can exist independently of God.

You got it. I do not agree that an objective morality can exist without God. Without God, each person is on equal footing, and each person must consent to the morality. The statement you made, murder is wrong, is an objective statement, but it is not an objective morality.

P.S: Speaking for myself, I don't frame morality as "subjective vs. objective". I find the entire distinction completely pointless.

Then there is no need to address the subjective/objective topic any longer.

You saying that God is the "source of morality" is identical to you saying he is the "source of power". When you use the term "moral" you deprive it of all meaning.

Another subjective/objective issue that is pointless to you.

The consequence to humanity is completely irrelevant to you.

Why are we discussing humanity now? We were talking about morality, and I stated that the basis of my morality is God's will. Why the change?

The consequences towards humans suspected or known influence why I would support or condemn an act. My own moral assertions are directly influenced by what the implications towards the suffering of others are. Yours are not. You could not care less. The only thing that matters to you is whether God commands it.

And for all that, you cannot just admit that your actions have to be in line with your principle. My actions must be in line, and so must yours.

The only reason you say murder is wrong is because you believe God has forbidden it. Same with rape, torture, theft and all forms of contemptible actions. The way you think has already detached it.

I am not detached from the action. There is no way I can be. It is the action that determines whether or not I am in line with God's will.

What a semantically useless statement, coming from you. You would always call God benevolent no matter what he decided to do. If he ordered the rape of all women you would still call him benevolent and call us fortunate.

If you prefer to not encounter such statements from me, do not start the line of speaking. You mentioned it first and incorrectly, and I merely stated it correctly for you.

Any word you use to describe how good God is pointless. We already know where you stand on this.

And any word you use to describe how bad God is is equally pointless.

Yes, I just wanted your statement of allegiance to a potential "warring, vengeful" God was out there and in the open. I always did wonder both in fiction and reality how people would become so willingly stooges and right-hand men to obviously evil dictators and you're demonstrating to my horror the existence of that mentality.

I often wonder the same thing. I am of the opinion that man's refusal to accept the existence of objective morals is the root cause. In the face of absolute rights and wrongs, I do not believe so many people would fall prey to evil men.

In the case of moral assertion? Nothing. I don't subscribe to the distinction of subjective vs. objective. Moral assertions are behavioural standards based on how we ought and ought not treat others. They can be no more objective that say, a favourite colour*.

*I await for Elioenai or perhaps even Max here to misinterpret this.

Nothing to say here. Previously we discussed subjective versus objective, but you have decided that you do not subscribe to the distinction any longer.

Inform me precisely the distinction you're making between ethics and morality.

Perhaps you should first. You introduced ethics to the discussion.

No, you follow God for self-interest? It isn't clear why you accept God for reasons other than that. I am moral and can be moral at the expense of my own self-gain. That sir is what morality is actually about and the only time that it is actually meaningful.

At any point, you are free to explain precisely how you could possibly be moral at the expense of your self-gain. I would be most interested in knowing this.

I follow God because I love Him. Do I believe it is in my best interest to love Him? Yes.

This comes across as semantically useless as the idea that atheists worship themselves, or worship hedonism.

I made no such suggestion. I said that you tell yourself what to do. Do you deny that?

You're just invoking comparisons where they do not belong. I infer what I ought or ought not do through observation of how my behaviour could effect others and I do this taking into account individual needs and preferences.

Does this not mean exactly what I said it means? Are you not telling yourself what to do?

It is true by definition. No-one alive wants an act inflicted upon they do not like without their consent.

To claim to know what each and every person wants is more than I would dare do. If you feel up to it, do it. It is ridiculous, but it is your choice.

Do you even know what a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is? Do you even know the difference between a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] receiving pain and a regular person receiving pain? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] might ask for some pain to be inflicted and thus would consent. A normal person would not.

In all that, you never bothered to addressed the issue of your inability to know what a person consents to prior to taking action.

Intent matters. If you were doing something to someone that you did not know would hurt them then you were misinformed or ignorant. You can take a level of responsibility for that, of course. What matters is that you should stop when you know it is against their consent.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's good and fine that you stop once you know it is against their consent, but it does not change what you have already done. You acted immorally by your own moral standards.

Why?

Why what?

If he was genuinely contacted by God you would be here vindicating him now. This is what is frightening.

If he was genuinely contacted by God, you do not know that you would not also be here vindicating him. You presume to know what you would do in an "if" situation that you have not experienced. You still presume to know a lot.

I consider it hateful to follow a "warring, vengeful" God which is what you'd say you'd be perfectly willing to do. I consider it hateful to defend rape and murder if endorsed by God.

And this has what to do with following a loving God? That was the issue.

Meaningless.

Meaningful.

If God demanded you to murder, rape and pillage you would still call him loving and you'd still do it.

I would not call Him loving. I would call Him right, but right would not mean loving.

We already do this. In most secular nations such things as human rights exist which were built principally to eradicate systematic oppression of groups and individuals and allow them to forge their own paths in life.

This is pointless now that you have decided to no longer care about the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity.

Sometimes this would be true. Not always. Making a pass at someone is not exactly immoral.

And making a pass at someone is not attempting to having sex with them. It may be the result you hope to gain, but it is not attempting to have sex with someone.

No, you need to give examples of how you could accidentally oppress someone to the point where you could not back down (as you seem to be suggesting).

You already have, and it does not matter if you back down or not. The immoral act was already committed, and it does not matter if your ignorance or misplaced intent played a role.

Yet you haven't produced a substantial argument for why his will is the basis of morality. You've simply said that because it is consistent it is "objective" and yet any edict on anything can be just as equally consistent.

Remember, we are talking about opinions, yours and mine. I do not need an argument of any type for why God's will is the basis for my morality, but in case you forgot, I told you it is because He is worthy of obedience.

Perhaps. Give examples please. Not sure what you mean by infliction.

You have already supplied the examples. When you act out of ignorance or misplaced intent and actually commit and act from which you have to back down.

My moral understanding is designed to take into account the differences of individuals. Yours is not. Just because you have a binary outlook does not make yours credible.

Again, you make no effort at addressing the point of what I said. You must be obedient to your morality, or it is of no use. Obedience is what fuels us both. Do you deny that?

It is for you. If God told you to murder anyone who was homosexual, you would regardless of their desires.

It is not for me. I have no problems whatsoever in respecting a person's right to run their own affairs. What do homosexuals have to do with it?

What do you think of hell, by the way? Do you think all non-Christians are going to be tormented there forever?

What does this have to do with our discussion?

We work out a solution. Give examples.
What kind of opposing views are you referring to?
Yes, we side with those that would be subjugated. This should be obvious. No-one wants to be subjugated. We can all infer rationally that none of us would like to have our rights removed and our freedoms limited and thus infer that we should not do it without sufficient and justified cause to others. This realisation in no way inhibits the right of potential oppressors. There is no right codified in rational legislation that grants individuals the right to subjugate others.

I cannot see how any of this matters now that there is no distinction between objective and subjective morality.

Someone's right to run their own show ends when it inflicts upon the right to run their own show. This is not hard. This is 101 human rights.

It is extremely hard, and if you think that 101 will deal with rights with no mention of subjectivity or objectivity, I am pretty sure you have no idea what rights really are.

Then it isn't liberty. By definition.
Do words actually mean anything to you?

Very little when they are used in the way you attempt to use them. Contrary to what you may like to believe, some people actually desire to be controlled. To them, their sense of liberty does involve totalitarianism.

I will take that as a no, you don't know what common ground means.

As you please.

I'll let the above lunacy stand on its own. Even if I had the mythical quality of "worthiness of obedience" it would not be right to ban or argue for the ban of the colour blue.

If you were worthy of obedience, it would be right to obey, necessarily.

You have not understand what I'm arguing then, at all. My moral understanding makes direct reference to the common ground in all human self-interest.

You are correct, and I agree again. I have no idea what you are arguing for. I do not even comprehend how you can call what you have a moral understanding.

 

[Max S Cherry]

If you do not mind, will you please tell me what you understand the difference between "fact" and "belief" to be? Perhaps, I will agree, and we can move beyond this discussion of definitions.

A belief is an opinion, or conviction; it may or may not be supportable by facts.

Please tell me the difference between a "belief" and a "fact." That is what I am asking you for as it seems to be an area of dispute for us.

I say that a belief is an opinion, a guess. I say that a fact is known, proven.

In your words, what is the difference?

 

[Skavau]

And since this is opinion versus opinion, substantiation is not applicable.

So much for your objectivity then.

I have already said that it is out of love and respect.

What reason is there for us to love and respect God? Especially if hypothetically he was to order murder and rape.

That you pretend to know what you would and would not do if you were delusional means either that you do not want to admit the truth or that you cannot see it.

Your worldview encourages and validates delusion. Mine does not. I would check myself in for assessment, you would be out killing people.

You got it. I do not agree that an objective morality can exist without God.

You are being inconsistent. I said that the statement "Murder is wrong" is as it applies consistent, universal and as pertains to how you use the word objective entirely sufficient to be considered objective.

Without God, each person is on equal footing, and each person must consent to the morality.

This is exactly true with God. Because, as it happens you have people like me who do not consent to the self-declared imposed standards by God.

The statement you made, murder is wrong, is an objective statement, but it is not an objective morality.

Neither is obeying God.

Then there is no need to address the subjective/objective topic any longer.

I believe you bought it up. But yes, I'd rather leave it.

Another subjective/objective issue that is pointless to you.

Not true. When you do say that God is the source of morality you are in fact saying the exact same thing when you say he's the source of power. I am letting you know how meaningless some words are to others when you use them.

Why are we discussing humanity now? We were talking about morality, and I stated that the basis of my morality is God's will. Why the change?

Because those are the consequences from which people who are sane determine whether an action is right or wrong. When I said that consequences of actions towards others mean nothing to you exactly what did you imagine I was referring to?

And for all that, you cannot just admit that your actions have to be in line with your principle. My actions must be in line, and so must yours.

Yes, I have principles. I always have. They are the reason I focus on how actions impact others. Point?

I am not detached from the action. There is no way I can be. It is the action that determines whether or not I am in line with God's will.

That is not what I am referring to. What I mean is that you don't care how your actions effect others. You do not care about the consequences towards your fellow humans. You only care if what happens aligns itself with what you think God wants.

If you prefer to not encounter such statements from me, do not start the line of speaking. You mentioned it first and incorrectly, and I merely stated it correctly for you.

I actually welcome those statements. I then get the opportunity to point how meaningless they are coming from you.

And any word you use to describe how bad God is is equally pointless.

This is nothing more than "No u!". Explain how my assertion that God would be wrong if he endorsed murder or rape is pointless and how it is so on an equal level to you.

I often wonder the same thing. I am of the opinion that man's refusal to accept the existence of objective morals is the root cause.

Oh don't play cute. You are the personification of the willing stooge. You are the Nazi collaborator. You are Vichy France. You are secret state informers. You are the recruited Stormtrooper. God as you represent him presents himself as the evil dictator.

In the face of absolute rights and wrongs, I do not believe so many people would fall prey to evil men.

You mean, according to you one absolute "right". That would be obedience to God. Don't pretend that your pseudo-morality actually has principles in plural other than obeying God.

Perhaps you should first. You introduced ethics to the discussion.

I don't. I want to know how you're distinguishing them.

At any point, you are free to explain precisely how you could possibly be moral at the expense of your self-gain.

???

Is this a serious question?

Sacrificing career prospects because of a moral disagreement with the government. Becoming an overt human rights activist in a dictatorship. Merely sacrificing one's portion of food for another more helpless and ill person. Giving to charity. There are plenty of ways to be moral at the expense of your own interests.

That is in part, what morality is all about. The concept seems so foreign to you.

I follow God because I love Him. Do I believe it is in my best interest to love Him? Yes.

You love him why?

I made no such suggestion. I said that you tell yourself what to do. Do you deny that?

No, you didn't make such a suggestion. I compared your claim to that of claims about atheists worshiping themselves or being hedonists.

Does this not mean exactly what I said it means? Are you not telling yourself what to do?

Yes, but it isn't exactly "obeying myself" or "following orders". There's a difference between blindly and without reason following the orders of a third party and acting in a specific way based on your understanding of reality.

To claim to know what each and every person wants is more than I would dare do. If you feel up to it, do it. It is ridiculous, but it is your choice.

Can you provide me someone who does in fact, want to be oppressed and have their human rights taken away? Even the most depraved of masochists want it on their own terms (read: consent).

In all that, you never bothered to addressed the issue of your inability to know what a person consents to prior to taking action.

This depends on the person. I'm still waiting for an example of what you actually mean so I can respond.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's good and fine that you stop once you know it is against their consent, but it does not change what you have already done. You acted immorally by your own moral standards.

Yes, no-one's perfect and sometimes we misjudge others through ignorance and prejudice. Is this going anywhere or are you going to build some absurd point up about moral perfection?

 

[Davian]

Please tell me the difference between a "belief" and a "fact."

You are making a category mistake.

You can have your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

That is what I am asking you for as it seems to be an area of dispute for us.

Less us, and more you and every dictionary I have been able to reference.

I say that a belief is an opinion, a guess. I say that a fact is known, proven.

Definitions to which you admit to "pulling out of thin air".

In your words, what is the difference?

I consider facts to be a things that are indisputably the case. The Earth orbits the Sun. Humans share DNA with carrots.

A belief may be just an opinion, a guess. I believe that the shop down the street has strawberry ice cream in stock. But if a scientist says he believes that there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri with an orbital period of 3.2357 Earth days, plus or minus 0.0008 of a day, he is not basing it on a guess, he is using facts (astronomical observations).

What is this lack of "certainty" that you have referred to?

 

[Max S Cherry]

So much for your objectivity then.

There is no objectivity in belief. We were, I thought, discussing some what ifs. If we stick to opinions only, substantiation is not required of either of us.

What reason is there for us to love and respect God? Especially if hypothetically he was to order murder and rape.

You already know my response to this.

Your worldview encourages and validates delusion. Mine does not. I would check myself in for assessment, you would be out killing people.

It neither encourages nor validates delusion rather it allows for the possibility that God could communicate to someone. You are as likely a candidate for delusion as I am, and neither of us know what we would do if delusion strikes.

You are being inconsistent. I said that the statement "Murder is wrong" is as it applies consistent, universal and as pertains to how you use the word objective entirely sufficient to be considered objective.

I am not being inconsistent. I have not wavered from my agreement that the statement murder is wrong is objective. I submit that it is not an objective morality. How is that inconsistent?

This is exactly true with God. Because, as it happens you have people like me who do not consent to the self-declared imposed standards by God.

And your consent is not required, so it is exactly the opposite with God. It is in the absence of God that man gets to decide right and wrong.

Neither is obeying God.

No. Obeying God is being moral. The morality is "that which God wills is right."

I believe you bought it up. But yes, I'd rather leave it.

I may have brought it up. To me, it is immensely important, but despite its importance to me, if it means nothing to you, we can count it left.

Not true. When you do say that God is the source of morality you are in fact saying the exact same thing when you say he's the source of power. I am letting you know how meaningless some words are to others when you use them.

When I use the word "moral," its meaning is the same as it is when others use it, or at least that is how it is meant. Moral is the opposite for immoral. For me, it means following God's will, and immoral is disobeying God's will. For you, it means the same thing if you replace "God's will" with your own governing principle.

Because those are the consequences from which people who are sane determine whether an action is right or wrong. When I said that consequences of actions towards others mean nothing to you exactly what did you imagine I was referring to?

An action is right or wrong based solely on its tendency to follow or deviate from a given morality. Its consequences on others do not seem to matter. Many will argue that it is right for a single to suffer in order than multiples do not. I disagree. An action must be, in its own right, right or wrong independent of how it affects people. I am not sure we disagree here.

I was not curious about your reference toward my beliefs. I was wondering why you started talking about humanity.

Yes, I have principles. I always have. They are the reason I focus on how actions impact others. Point?

That is the point. You have to obey. You are no different from me.

That is not what I am referring to. What I mean is that you don't care how your actions effect others. You do not care about the consequences towards your fellow humans. You only care if what happens aligns itself with what you think God wants.

Yes, you are correct. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were getting at. In order to moral, my actions must be in line with God's will whatever the human costs. It is worth noting of course that there are currently no human costs to following God's will, and they only occur in your hypothetical.

I actually welcome those statements. I then get the opportunity to point how meaningless they are coming from you.

If you want to take the opportunity to point out that you do not care about that which I already know you do not care about, be my guest, but it seems like a waste of time to me. We could just skip the exercise and move on.

This is nothing more than "No u!". Explain how my assertion that God would be wrong if he endorsed murder or rape is pointless and how it is so on an equal level to you.

Actually, I would have said, "No you!" It seems lazy to not add the extra two letters. It is pointless because I know that you do not care about following God's will. You saying God is bad because of X, Y, and Z is no different than me saying God is great because of A, B, and C.

Oh don't play cute. You are the personification of the willing stooge. You are the Nazi collaborator. You are Vichy France. You are secret state informers. You are the recruited Stormtrooper. God as you represent him presents himself as the evil dictator.

No. You are mistaken. I am far less likely than someone like you to become a stooge. There is no human who can lead me to go against God's will. I believe my dedication to Him should be above reproach at this point. You are subject to your mind, and your mind is subject to be influenced by man. It may be unlikely, but it is more likely for you than for me. You will listen to reason, and you can be rationalized with. I do not follow my reasoning, and I cannot be rationalized with when it requires me to do something that God does not will. For the record, as I represent God, He is as far from evil as one can get.

You mean, according to you one absolute "right". That would be obedience to God. Don't pretend that your pseudo-morality actually has principles in plural other than obeying God.

The basis of the morality is adherence to God's will, but there are actions that must be taken or not taken to be in line with His will. Those are the rights and wrongs I was referring to.

I don't. I want to know how you're distinguishing them.

I do not remember drawing any distinction between them.

???
Is this a serious question?
Sacrificing career prospects because of a moral disagreement with the government. Becoming an overt human rights activist in a dictatorship. Merely sacrificing one's portion of food for another more helpless and ill person. Giving to charity. There are plenty of ways to be moral at the expense of your own interests.

All of these seem to be perfectly at ease with your interest. It seems that you prefer to find a different job rather than agree with the government, that you prefer being a human rights activist rather than follow a dictator, that you prefer to be hungry than to see another go hungrier than you, and that you prefer to donate to charity rather than hoarding all your treasures. Each of these serve your self-interest. So yeah, it is a serious question.

That is in part, what morality is all about. The concept seems so foreign to you.

It is not foreign to me at all. God calls His children to sacrifice themselves, but I do not see how you can claim to do it.

You love him why?

Why do we love anyone? It is something that happens. I do not believe that I am capable of explaining the genesis of love. If you can, feel free to do so. The world is waiting on that one.

Yes, but it isn't exactly "obeying myself" or "following orders". There's a difference between blindly and without reason following the orders of a third party and acting in a specific way based on your understanding of reality.

It is obeying yourself. If you do not obey yourself, your morality is not followed, and it is, as I said, useless.

Can you provide me someone who does in fact, want to be oppressed and have their human rights taken away? Even the most depraved of masochists want it on their own terms (read: consent).

I have neither the time nor inclination to search the world's population looking for the person. He may not exist, but he may. All I said was that I was not up to the task of saying what every living person wants or does not want and that it was a ridiculous assertion to make. It still is just as ridiculous as it was. We both know that you cannot possibly know this, so how about we drop it?

This depends on the person. I'm still waiting for an example of what you actually mean so I can respond.

I do not need a specific response from you. I need you to admit that your system of morality relies upon an ability that you do not possess: knowing what each and every person you encounter consents to prior to your taking any action that may affect them.

Yes, no-one's perfect and sometimes we misjudge others through ignorance and prejudice. Is this going anywhere or are you going to build some absurd point up about moral perfection

It goes no farther than your admission that you act immorally when you misjudge.

 

[Max S Cherry]

You are making a category mistake.

And a category mistake is? That beliefs and facts are different sorts of things and cannot be compared. Is that what you are saying?

You can have your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

I do not dispute this.

Less us, and more you and every dictionary I have been able to reference.

Park your dictionaries because they mean nothing to me. I know the definitions of words, and my vocabulary is not lacking. What I oppose is certain usages. If you are under the impression that an area of dispute can exist between one person, we have a new area of dispute, or perhaps this one is just yours. I am not sure how that works.

I consider facts to be a things that are indisputably the case.

Is it okay for me to say that "things that are indisputably the case" means that they are proven? If so, my definitions are holding. If it does not mean that they are proven, I am going to need you to tell me what "things that are indisputably the case" means.

A belief may be just an opinion, a guess.

Again, you seem to concur with the definitions I supplied. I am not sure why you made all the fuss to begin with.

But if a scientist says he believes that there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri with an orbital period of 3.2357 Earth days, plus or minus 0.0008 of a day, he is not basing it on a guess, he is using facts (astronomical observations).

Why would the scientist say he believes the planet is there if it is based on facts? Why is it not a fact that the planet is there and behaving as he said it is behaving?

What is this lack of "certainty" that you have referred to?

What is a lack certainty? I am not sure I know what you are asking.

 

[Davian]

And a category mistake is? That beliefs and facts are different sorts of things and cannot be compared. Is that what you are saying?

Yes.

I do not dispute this.

Park your dictionaries because they mean nothing to me. I know the definitions of words, and my vocabulary is not lacking. What I oppose is certain usages. If you are under the impression that an area of dispute can exist between one person, we have a new area of dispute, or perhaps this one is just yours. I am not sure how that works.

Perhaps you could write your own dictionary that could be referenced when others are corresponding with you.

Is it okay for me to say that "things that are indisputably the case" means that they are proven? If so, my definitions are holding. If it does not mean that they are proven, I am going to need you to tell me what "things that are indisputably the case" means.

"Things that are indisputably the case" are still open to falsification. Things that are proven are not.

Again, you seem to concur with the definitions I supplied. I am not sure why you made all the fuss to begin with.

You said "is", I said "may be".

Why would the scientist say he believes the planet is there if it is based on facts? Why is it not a fact that the planet is there and behaving as he said it is behaving?

Because his belief - his interpretation of the facts - is open to falsification. A belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden is not.

What is a lack certainty? I am not sure I know what you are asking.

You said, "If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not."

What is this lack of "certainty" that you are referring to?

 

[Max S Cherry]

"Things that are indisputably the case" are still open to falsification. Things that are proven are not.

So a fact is a belief?

You said "is", I said "may be".

An important distinction.

Because his belief - his interpretation of the facts - is open to falsification.

So are the facts upon which his interpretation is built. His belief, according to your statement above, is precisely the same as a fact. Now you have no difference whatsoever between a belief and a fact; neither of them are proven, and they are both open to falsification.

A belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden is not.

Sure it is. Go down to the bottom of the garden and look.

You said, "If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not."

What is this lack of "certainty" that you are referring to?

The certainty that I referred occurred way back in the long ago, and honestly, I do not remember exactly what we were talking about then. Seems like it was something to do with evolution or maybe some traits. Anyway, it seemed to me that you were counting on certainty of some things, but now, it seems that you accept less certainty that I do.

I am not sure if we have made any progress at all.

 

[Illuminaughty]

What if the fairies are invisible and only people with the proper faith can know of their existence.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Perhaps you could write your own dictionary that could be referenced when others are corresponding with you.

I hope you know that the point you are making is not lost on me, and I do appreciate the time you have spent working through this with me. Thank you.

 

[Max S Cherry]

What if the fairies are invisible and only people with the proper faith can know of their existence.

Have the believers check for them then. Simple fix.