The Moral Argument

[bhsmte]

Sounds like you

• Davian
• Nov 4, 2014

He needs to think he can speak for God. Otherwise, his arguments, fall apart.

 

[anonymous person]

That is a good thing on which to base what you believe I have said. AP is not so clear on this approach.

I don't understand; what alternatives are open to me? Despair? Nihilism? I accept it for what it is.

What I hope to recognize is an accurate description of reality. By accurate, I mean, coherently and robustly described, supported with testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories, and subject to change with exposure to new information.

Too often the word "truth" in these forums is wielded simply as ones own personal theology. Is that the "truth" that you allude to?

What you perceive as stubbornness and 'concrete' may only be the ineffectiveness of the arguments you have brought to bear in these forums.

Keep in mind that just about any of the well-known 'arguments for God' have already been dragged through these forums in recent history, mostly by AP himself, in his many iterations. In contrast to his claim of infallibility, I stick around to see how much wrong he can accumulate.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He later created man in His own Image and likeness. He created them male and female. He put them in a world where they were to live and be happy. They wanted something they thought would make them happy but that God had forbidden. They fell and sin entered the world. Her Seed eventually came into the world to testify to the truth and to show men who God was and to pay the sin debt we all owe. His resurrection was a public vindication that the debt was paid and vindication of His radical claims to divinity. The Church, His body, continues to grow and proclaim this good news. Christ is coming to judge the living and the dead and them that have been regenerated will live and reign forever with God. Them that are unbelieving and unrepentant of their sins shall suffer the torment of eternal banishment from the presence of God in hell.

There is your accurate and true description of reality.

 

[quatona]

Pay attention.

There are two broad semantic theories which explain ethical sentences like "Raping children is wrong".

1. Cognitivism

OR

2. Non-Cognitivism

I don´t care about your theories. I have told you several possible meanings of a statement that explicitly or implicitly are not meant to refer to and do not require there to be a beyond-human truth.
So you either pay attention to what has been said, or we are done here.

The ethical sentence "Raping children is wrong." is either truth-apt or not. What do I mean by truth-apt? Well truth-apt means capable of being true. That is, ethical sentences are truth bearers, capable of being true or false.

If it is not capable of being true or false, the ethical sentence "Raping children is wrong", is merely a kind of expression rather than an assertion. It is like saying, "Boo on killing!", or "Killing...Ahhh!" It is no different than saying, "Spaghetti....yucky!" "Or porridge...ewww!"

Minus the trivializing way of representing the statement: The technical term is "subjective opinion".

Still paying attention? Good.
In between an individual subjective opinion and your "objective (independent of human opinion) morality" there are values that are held by the vast majorities of humans because they are in the human interest. You know there are because your "raping an innocent child for fun" routine starts exactly with an appeal to this consensus among humans.

So the question again is, the ethical sentence "Raping children is wrong", is merely just an expression of distaste because there is no ethical fact that the sentence corresponds to, or it is a proposition capable of being true or false. A non-cognitivist affirms the former, while a cognitivist affirms the latter.

Which are you?

How often will you ask?
It´s you who needs to pay attention.
I have explained it to you several times: I don´t know that there are values "independent of human opinion", and even you are admitting that even if there are they can not conclusively be known. Thus, intellectual integrity forbids a truth-statement of the latter category - even if assuming for the sake of the argument that there might be an extra-human morality.

 

[quatona]

Sure there is. Maybe he can explain to you why he thinks objective moral values and duties exist. Maybe you will listen to him since he is not a Christian.

Mark works from an entirely different definition of "objective" than you do. He and I did have exhaustive discussions about it (I don´t think "objective" is a particularly good choice of term for what he means), but - apart from semantics - you would be mistaken to assume that you guys hold even remotely similar meta-ethical beliefs (not to mention moral beliefs).

Let him explain it to you. Maybe you will listen to him since he doesn´t label himself "subjectivist".

 

[anonymous person]

I don´t care about your theories. I have told you several possible meanings of a statement that explicitly or implicitly are not meant to refer to and do not require there to be a beyond-human truth.
So you either pay attention to what has been said, or we are done here.




Minus the trivializing way of representing the statement: The technical term is "subjective opinion".

Still paying attention? Good.
In between an individual subjective opinion and your "objective (independent of human opinion) morality" there are values that are held by the vast majorities of humans because they are in the human interest. You know there are because your "raping an innocent child for fun" routine starts exactly with an appeal to this consensus among humans.





How often will you ask?
It´s you who needs to pay attention.
I have explained it to you several times: I don´t know that there are values "independent of human opinion", and even you are admitting that even if there are they can not conclusively be known. Thus, intellectual integrity forbids a truth-statement of the latter category - even if assuming for the sake of the argument that there might be an extra-human morality.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[anonymous person]

Mark works from an entirely different definition of "objective" than you do. He and I did have exhaustive discussions about it (I don´t think "objective" is a particularly good choice of term for what he means), but - apart from semantics - you would be mistaken to assume that you guys hold even remotely similar meta-ethical beliefs (not to mention moral beliefs).

Let him explain it to you. Maybe you will listen to him since he doesn´t label himself "subjectivist".

I don't really need to listen to him. He's wrong and you're wrong.

 

[quatona]

You are free to believe what you will. And with your view that views are subjective, I need not affirm anything other than assert them the way you assert yours, is that not correct?

As you may have noticed, I am not affirming or asserting any moral convictions to you.
You have asserted and affirmed yours - which is sufficient for me to conclude that we don´t have any common ground for discussing our ethical and moral convictions.
This is what I have repeatedly informed you about a couple of days ago, and this isn´t going to change.

And, yes, you needn´t do anything beyond asserting your moral convictions. You have done it, they have been noted. Get over it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that is the case then anytime anyone asks you anything, whether they are asking you what 2 and 2 is or what your favorite meal is, they are by definition asking you for your subjective opinion.

Obviously you're wrong. For the one who asks you what 2 and 2 is, is asking you for something for which there is only one objectively true answer.

It's absurd to think that just because you are asked a question that therefore that question is not made true by an independent feature of reality, but by whatever your opinion is.

Obviously if someone asks you what the capital of Idaho is, or who the 30th president of the United States was, you cannot say, "well since you are asking me, there is no true answer to the question."

Likewise, simply stating that I am asking you your subjective opinion about a certain act being good or bad, right or wrong, begs the question that such an act being bad or good is determined by one's subjective preference.

I asked you if chopping an atheist into pieces because he is an atheist was objectively wrong.

I am not asking you for your opinion or what you feel. I am asking you if there is a feature of reality that exists independently of human opinion and preference that makes the proposition, "chopping atheists into pieces with a machete because they are atheists is wrong." objectively true.

All I'm saying is that when you ask...

"What do you think about this?"

You're saying the equivalent of...

"What's your subjective opinion of this?"

That doesn't make everything a subjective opinion. I'm just pointing out that you can't demonstrate an objective fact by asking for subjective opinions.

Once again the confusion is evident. 2 and 2 being four is not made objectively true by your being able to show it is true. It is made true because the proposition's truth bearer refers to an independently existing feature of reality not dependent on human opinion or perception.

The proposition 2 and 2 is 4 would be true even if no one knew how to add the two numbers together.

The confusion is evident lol...that much is true. I never said that 2+2=4 because I can demonstrate it...that's a straw man. I said that demonstrating it shows that it's an objective fact.

The point I made is that you'll never demonstrate an objective fact by asking for what people think. Everyone in the world can think that 2+2=5...but that won't make it so. It's exactly the same as everyone thinking that the murder of an atheist by some terrorists is evil...doesn't make it so. Opinions aren't objective facts.

 

[Davian]

Because God decided it should be so.

One thing that will help you, is if you sat down and read the entire Bible, not just the few verses out of 600,000 which speak about God and who He is.

I can't help but think you have a very skewed and narrow view of who God is.

I only have your god as you have portrayed it as in those forums.

 

[quatona]

You didn't answer the question.

I don´t answer loaded questions nor questions that are comprised of false dichotomies "yes" or "no".
You aren´t interested in my actual meta-ethical stance (which I have exhaustively and patiently explained to you countless times), you are merely interested in pushing through your script, with all the errors in it. You aren´t listening, you aren´t paying attention. In essence, you are talking to yourself.

 

[Davian]

Much of the bible is about creating fear. Fear is a good short term method to get people to go along. Nothing like wiping out women and children, to create a bit of fear.

Indeed.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, I have heard it said. Not wisdom in the conventional sense, of course.

 

[quatona]

I don't really need to listen to him. He's wrong and you're wrong.

So why again did you suggest I let him explain his "wrong" stance to me, in support of your notion?
Dishonesty is one thing, shameless dishonesty is yet another.

 

[anonymous person]

As you may have noticed, I am not affirming or asserting any moral convictions to you.
You have asserted and affirmed yours - which is sufficient for me to conclude that we don´t have any common ground for discussing our ethical and moral convictions.
This is what I have repeatedly informed you about a couple of days ago, and this isn´t going to change.

And, yes, you needn´t do anything beyond asserting your moral convictions. You have done it, they have been noted. Get over it.

You don't appear to have any moral convictions period.

 

[anonymous person]

So why again did you suggest I let him explain his "wrong" stance to me, in support of your notion?
Dishonesty is one thing, shameless dishonesty is yet another.

Your opinions don't count for much.

 

[anonymous person]

I don´t answer loaded questions nor questions that are comprised of false dichotomies "yes" or "no".
You aren´t interested in my actual meta-ethical stance (which I have exhaustively and patiently explained to you countless times), you are merely interested in pushing through your script, with all the errors in it. You aren´t listening, you aren´t paying attention. In essence, you are talking to yourself.

You're right I'm not interested in your views. You're wrong and I gain nothing from listening to people who are wrong except being thankful that God has been gracious to me to show me what is right.

 

[quatona]

The point I made is that you'll never demonstrate an objective fact by asking for what people think. Everyone in the world can think that 2+2=5...but that won't make it so.

And just let us not forget that - since he brought up "2+2=4" as an analogy for "objective moral facts" - he is the one who - if remaining in his analogy - asserts that "2+2=4" except when God says "2+2=5".

 

[anonymous person]

I only have your god as you have portrayed it as in those forums.

You actually have nothing.

 

[anonymous person]

And just let us not forget that - since he brought up "2+2=4" as an analogy for "objective moral facts" - he is the one who - if remaining in his analogy - asserts that "2+2=4" except when God says "2+2=5".

Again, you're wrong. Not surprising though.

 

[anonymous person]

All I'm saying is that when you ask...

"What do you think about this?"

You're saying the equivalent of...

"What's your subjective opinion of this?"

That doesn't make everything a subjective opinion. I'm just pointing out that you can't demonstrate an objective fact by asking for subjective opinions.







The confusion is evident lol...that much is true. I never said that 2+2=4 because I can demonstrate it...that's a straw man. I said that demonstrating it shows that it's an objective fact.

The point I made is that you'll never demonstrate an objective fact by asking for what people think. Everyone in the world can think that 2+2=5...but that won't make it so. It's exactly the same as everyone thinking that the murder of an atheist by some terrorists is evil...doesn't make it so. Opinions aren't objective facts.

Great.

But I don't care about what your opinions are on moral issues.

If you don't have any facts you want to appeal to then you have nothing to show me.

 

[Davian]

If that is false, then you should know that God is merciful, longsuffering, kind, patient, Good, gentle, loving, caring, and near to all who call upon Him in addition to being Just,

"Just", as in unethical and morally bankrupt.

and Holy

Are there gods that are not godly?

and righteous.

Might makes right.

Additionally, giving the Israelites superpowers may have protected them, but the Amalekites would still have been plundering and pillaging people. They still would have been sinning before God with their abominable practices. They still would have been unrepentant and ripe for judgment.

I think the issue here is righteousness and judgment.

It is hard to relate to those who suffered from such people because we are living thousands of years later in the comfort of our homes.

If we had been on the receiving end of the Amalekites wickedness, we would be crying out for God to judge them.

On what basis would they be judged, other than disbelief?