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.
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.
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.Pay attention.
There are two broad semantic theories which explain ethical sentences like "Raping children is wrong".
1. Cognitivism
OR
2. Non-Cognitivism
Minus the trivializing way of representing the statement: The technical term is "subjective opinion".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!"
How often will you ask?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?
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.
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.
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".
As you may have noticed, I am not affirming or asserting any moral convictions to you.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?
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.
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.
I only have your god as you have portrayed it as in those forums.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 don´t answer loaded questions nor questions that are comprised of false dichotomies "yes" or "no".You didn't answer the question.
Indeed.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.
So why again did you suggest I let him explain his "wrong" stance to me, in support of your notion?I don't really need to listen to him. He's wrong and you're wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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".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.
You actually have nothing.I only have your god as you have portrayed it as in those forums.
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".
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.
"Just", as in unethical and morally bankrupt.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,
Are there gods that are not godly?and Holy
Might makes right.and righteous.
On what basis would they be judged, other than disbelief?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.
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?