- Oct 14, 2015
- 6,133
- 3,090
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This eight foot Manchild guy sure comes in swinging.....blindly.
Me?Ok. Start by proving that objective morality exists and we can go from there.
I duno anymore. Lol[emoji1]Me?
Why would I try to prove a notion I don´t hold?
Exactly. It just uses it for a premise.I don't know. From what I have studied. The moral argument does not prove that objective morality exists.
Again:I duno anymore. Lol[emoji1]
1 and 2 are the premises. 3 is the conclusion.It goes like this:
1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
What is an "objective moral duty", and how did you establish it as objective?You say that one should aspire to thus and so...
What it they aspire to be the most intellectually dishonest that they can be? Are they failing to fulfill an objective moral duty to be honest?
I did not imply that.The word objective as it is used in the moral argument does not mean one of a kind or unique.
It does, if the opinion of your god is only one of many gods.It simply means independent of human opinion and preference.
So your mentioning of something being only one of many does not have anything to do with objectivity.
And no one has been able to demonstrate their religion as true, I know.The apostle Peter wrote that no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Paul wrote that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
These statements are either true or false. If true, then all other religions are false wherever they contradict this truth.
So how do you apply that to moral values, beyond consensus of opinion and religious dogma?Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective
In all of the "objective morals" I have seen you propose to date, they all seemed to be an appeal to emotion.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/objective
Objective
1(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial Contrasted with subjective.
Do you speak for the OP?We have not presented the argument to you.
Or seem capable of it, it would seem, or you would have done so when you started your own threads on this topic.Nor do we feel it necessary to do what you ask.
It seems that it only appeals to those that share your theology and its "morals".Now if Jason wants to oblige you then fine.
I don't think the moral argument is a good argument to present to someone like yourself, so I wouldn't.
So independent of whatever personal deities think about it too?A contemporary proponent of the Moral Argument is Dr. Craig.
He explains:
By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz43NachoCS
You previously characterised "objective" as "God-given," rendering the first premise tautological, and ensuring that the argument begs the question.Ok great.
If you still want to remain an atheist, you will have to deny premise 1 which reads:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Now, you have affirmed that the systematic extermination of a particular ethnic group because they are of a particular ethnicity is objectively bad and wrong.
As an atheist, tell us what grounds these pronouncements. Notice you cannot appeal to human beings because you affirmed that they hold regardless of what human beings think.
Perhaps you could begin by addressing all the questions you fled from? There's no point in re-presenting the same material only to encounter the same questions which you refuse to answer.Yea. I've been over this stuff before. I am going to have to go back and go through my old posts and use some of that material.
Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...Suppose that the axis powers had won the second world war and that the Nazi's exterminated everyone that was not a Nazi sympathizer so that the only people that existed on earth were those who thought that the systematic extermination of non-Germans was a good thing.
Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in?
A video??
How about answering the questions posed to you?
Or, is that too risky, so you choose a video to avoid the same?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?