The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[gaara4158]

Maybe, but your moral laws are not embedded in the universe like His which have real life consequences if ignored in both in people's physical life and their spiritual life. And millions DO listen to God's commands and try to obey them. Maybe a few besides you listen to your moral rules.

Are these moral laws objective because of the consequences they lead to, or because of God’s command? I have several moral laws that I follow which God doesn’t mention, and they have real-life consequences if ignored too. What’s the difference? Spiritual consequences are redundant if there are already real consequences.

If the Christian God exists then there is an objective moral standard, God's moral character which exists outside human minds thereby existing objectively. I am glad you agree that your moral standard is based on the same thing as Hitler's. So why do you condemn him? He was just making decisions based on his feelings like you. He should not be condemned just because his feelings are different from yours.

Why do you hold God’s moral character as the grand arbiter? Why not your own? Why not Hitler’s? Why not a set of consequence-based moral axioms?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Here is the rest of it

(First Ken said)
No straw man, I’m just exposing the absurdity of your example. You said I read a book and call it real, then another person reads a book he calls real and I call it false; and you act as if I have no justification to call his book false. You need to look into why I called the other book false.

(Then TRR said)
Here again, you are either missing the point or obfuscating. You write that I act as if you “have no justification to call his book false,” yet, your own answers refute your premise. It is amazing that you don’t see the real absurdity; which are your contradicting statements and positions. Therefore, to change the topic from Ken admits he could be wrong and yet persists in positing that he is right, to a topic of why Ken is right, is clearly a straw man. Don’t you see your contradiction here?

(Ken)
I believe something to be true, while at the same time admitting to the possibility that I could be wrong? People do this all the time! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

(TRR said)
Additionally, when you write “You need to look into why I called the other book false” you, again, are totally missing the point or obfuscating. This statement of yours, “You need to look into why I called the other book false” is a positive statement by you that you believe to be the “real” issue. What makes this the real issue?

(Ken)
Real issue? What’s that; some more stuff you just made up?? Look; I was just pointing out something you conveniently left out.

(TRR said)
Regarding your “justifications,” how do they truly justify anything when you, by your own admission, admit that you really don’t know whether those justifications are true or not?

(Ken)
More stuff you are just making up; I never said anything like that. Again; why don’t you respond to what I actually said, rather than make stuff up? Humm…. Lemme guess; making stuff up is easier to refute than the stuff I actually said. I think they have a name for that.

(TRR said)
When you wrote “Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around. IOW your argument fails,” What did you mean?

(Ken)
I was pointing out the person trying to convert has the burden of proof.

(TRR said)
The inference to be drawn from “Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around” necessarily means that (your point to me, or what you wanted to convince me of), is that what Christians do, (you specifically pointed out proselytizing), is to attempt to convince others what to believe and you do not and this somehow, and in some way negates my point. In other words, (this is a paraphrase of the meaning behind your words) “T R-R, don’t you get that because Christians proselytize and I don’t and that your point fails because of this?” To put it another way, “your point fails because proselytizing is morally wrong.

(Ken)
No. Again; my point was the person proselytizing has the burden of making his case. I am not proselytizing so I don’t have such a burden.

(First I said)
I responded to that point on post #1958. Now return the favor and answer mine.

(TRR reply)
Once again you are confused or obfuscating. Your answers in post #1958, combined with all of your answers, are self-contradicting. Therefore, the best and most charitable rendering of your responses are to say; that you have faith and that faith is what justifies and makes your positions true.

(Ken)
If you disagree with anything I said, point it out to me.

(TRR)
Post # 1957 “To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity.

(Ken)
Which as human beings we are capable of doing.

(TRR)
You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability.

(Ken)
Perhaps YOU lack this ability, but I don’t.

(TRR)
Therefore, to postulate any concept as objective truth can only be discounted as not a serious intellectual position, but rather a faith statement. Knowing objectivity necessarily means that one can point to, cite, etc. a frame of reference where “all creation” (for lack of a better term) is subjected to it

(Ken)
So once again; you need to prove that I and everybody else (except you) are subjective beings, (whatever that means) and are unable to site a frame of reference that everything is subjected to.

Ken, you failed to answer the majority of my questions and you continue with your contradictions. Don’t you see this?

(Ken)
I believe something to be true, while at the same time admitting to the possibility that I could be wrong? People do this all the time! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You are at it again. This is obfuscation or ignorance. If you were honest to the debate you would know and acknowledge that I of course understand that “people do this all of the time.” That is not the issue, but another attempt to change the topic. The topic (issue) that we were debating was knowing objectivity. You seem to be conveniently losing sight of this.

It is clear that your educational level is one where you haven’t learned that it is irrelevant that people act on faith (what they believe) and whether or not one can know objectivity. The concepts are wholly separate and there is no cause and effect relationship between the two.

As this discussion continues, it more and more seems that you are a younger person as the quality of your responses demonstrate this.


(Ken)
Real issue? What’s that; some more stuff you just made up?? Look; I was just pointing out something you conveniently left out.

Here too, your response demonstrates that you do know comprehend the inferences from your own statements. It is clear that you do not understand that the reasons why one holds to a faith is irrelevant to the fact that they hold to a faith. You clearly do not understand the differences between the two concepts. This too evidences your probable youth, but certainly it evidences your lack of understanding of these concepts.

Do you see a difference between these two following concepts?

• Ken has faith
• Ken believes because he finds X compelling

The first statement is a statement of “what.”
The second is a statement of “why.”

Why is irrelevant to what. Why may be a contributor to your accepting what, but they are different concepts. Why is a different topic than whether phenomenon X factually exists.

Ken having faith is a statement of fact.

Ken believes in his faith because of X, is a statement not addressing the fact that Ken has faith, but, in your case, some of the reasons Ken holds to his faith.

Let me try it this way so you can possibly understand this better.

• Ken has faith (statement of fact)
• Ken believes because of X (statement of justifications)

I truly hope that you see the difference.


(Ken)
More stuff you are just making up; I never said anything like that. Again; why don’t you respond to what I actually said, rather than make stuff up? Humm…. Lemme guess; making stuff up is easier to refute than the stuff I actually said. I think they have a name for that.

Here again, you clearly do not understand that I did respond to what you wrote. This is more evidence of your lack of understanding. It is clear that you do not understand that when you attempted to posit the reasons why you are correct (So..... Why does Ken believe one book is true, and the other false? That's the question that needs to be answered.) is an attempt by you to justify your positions. My response was on topic, asked relative questions, and made relevant points. I hope that you can see this and be mature enough to acknowledge it when you do finally understand this.


(Ken)
I was pointing out the person trying to convert has the burden of proof.

Apparently here too you miss that it is obvious that was your point. Again, my response was on topic, asked relative questions, and made relevant points. You do not comprehend that I have been asking you (over and over and over) to live by this standard that you demand. I hope that you can follow the inference from your statement that:

When Ken states “I was pointing out the person trying to convert has the burden of proof,” he is making a statement of morality. “Has the burden of proof” is a statement of value. What is the basis on which anyone has a burden of proof? (Please attempt to answer this. A.K.A. don’t conveniently ignore this question.)

You clearly don’t understand that “has” (has the burden of proof) in the context that you use it is an attempt to establish a universal moral code. You are proselytizing. A necessary derivative from “has” in the context that you use it is that “Person X” must perform “action Y” or they are not in a right position (that is, that Person X is performing an wrong action).

Furthermore, since you have no basis to prove that “the person trying to convert has the burden of proof” is objectively true, (in other words, by what standard does anyone have this burden) it is logical to then conclude that this is a faith statement of yours. And, it is a faith statement of morality. And, since you in fact wrote this statement of faith here at this forum site, you have written for the purpose of having me believe it and accept it. Don’t you see that this is the very definition of proselytizing? It is logically clear that since you choose to not substantiate the reasons (your burden of proof) as to how “the person trying to convert has the burden of proof” is objectively true, you are then demanding others live by your faith system.

It seems clear that you do not comprehend these inferences from your position. This is evidence that you are young, but, regardless, it is clear you are not understanding this. I, nonetheless, truly hope that you can begin to see this.


(Ken)
No. Again; my point was the person proselytizing has the burden of making his case. I am not proselytizing so I don’t have such a burden.

See above. Clearly, you do not understand that you are proselytizing and clearly you do not understand that you bear the same burden.


(Ken)
Which as human beings we are capable of doing.

Again, what is your reference point? On what basis (how) do you know humans are capable of this? You’ve already admitted that you could be wrong in the interpretation of the data that you receive. How, then, do you know that you are correct in this? Yet again, this is a faith statement of yours. You don’t seem to understand that you have only used circular “logic” to justify this statement (Which as human beings we are capable of doing).

Again, it seems that you are likely a younger person and do not understand that it is not logically tenable to hold that you could be wrong about conclusion X, but that you know it to be true.

Please attempt to answer this question: You state “Which as human beings we are capable of doing”, what is your basis to know humans are capable of knowing objective truth?


(Ken)
Perhaps YOU lack this ability, but I don’t.

Here again you demonstrate a lack of understanding. Please attempt to answer the question: you state “Perhaps YOU lack this ability, but I don’t,” what is your basis to know that you have the ability to know objective truth.

You’ve already confessed to knowing that you could be wrong in your interpretations, which means that you clearly do not understand that you’ve already refuted yourself.



(Ken)
So once again; you need to prove that I and everybody else (except you) are subjective beings, (whatever that means) and are unable to site a frame of reference that everything is subjected to.

It is clear that you do not understand these concepts since you’ve already demonstrated the proof that you’ve demanded from me; you've refuted yourself.

You’ve stated that you “could be wrong” about how you perceive the data that you receive. Your statement, is the academic, scientific, and intellectual definition, of subjectivity. If you don’t see this and acknowledge this then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your level of education on this matter is rudimentary.

The simple answer to your question is that you’ve already demonstrated this to be true. If you do not or cannot understand this I will happily wait until you’re level of education catches up to the conversation. We can resume the debate on this specific point when you’ve learned more.

If you hope to continue this point of debate now we will both need to understand the concepts of subjectivity, objectivity, and subjective beings. If this is what you’d like to do now, and not wait until your educational level somewhat catches up to the conversation, I propose that we use the academic, scientific, and intellectual definitions to start with. Is this acceptable to you?


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

The topic (issue) that we were debating was knowing objectivity. You seem to be conveniently losing sight of this.

I provided a dictionary definition of objectivity, and I explained why I know what is objective. If that isn’t good enough, you need to explain what type of answer you are looking for.

Do you see a difference between these two following concepts?

• Ken has faith
• Ken believes because he finds X compelling

The first statement is a statement of “what.”
The second is a statement of “why.”

Why is irrelevant to what. Why may be a contributor to your accepting what, but they are different concepts. Why is a different topic than whether phenomenon X factually exists.

Ken having faith is a statement of fact.

Ken believes in his faith because of X, is a statement not addressing the fact that Ken has faith, but, in your case, some of the reasons Ken holds to his faith.

Let me try it this way so you can possibly understand this better.

• Ken has faith (statement of fact)
• Ken believes because of X (statement of justifications)

I truly hope that you see the difference.

The above has nothing to do with the “why” that we were discussing.
You gave an analogy of me reading a book that I believe to be true, and another person reading a book that he believes is true. Because we both believe our books are true, you asked how I could justify claiming his book false. My response was that you need to understand why I claim his book false.

When Ken states “I was pointing out the person trying to convert has the burden of proof,” he is making a statement of morality. “Has the burden of proof” is a statement of value. What is the basis on which anyone has a burden of proof?

No. If you are trying to convince someone, it is up to you to provide proof of your claim if you expect him to accept your view; he isn’t required to explain why he doesn’t believe you.
This is not about morality or any type of a statement of value, it is just basic rules of debate.

Again, what is your reference point?

It depends on the claim that is made. If the claim is “Ken is alive”, Ken is the reference point and as long as you know what it means to be alive, you can see if this applies to Ken. The fact that it does means anybody who claims I am not alive is wrong. If the claim is a 1+1=2, the rules of math is the reference point so anybody who claims it does not equal 2 is wrong.

Please attempt to answer this question: You state “Which as human beings we are capable of doing”, what is your basis to know humans are capable of knowing objective truth?

See above.
Once again; you need to prove that we are subjective beings, without the ability to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. All you’ve done thus far is

*proclaim we are subjective beings without proving that we are
*Proclaim to know objectivity requires the ability to site a frame of reference that everything is subjected to, without proving this claim has merit
*Proclaim humans lack this ability without proving that we do

In other words, all you’ve done thus far is make a series of proclamations without backing anything up
(Please attempt to answer this. A.K.A. don’t conveniently ignore this question.)

 

[Ken-1122]

No, but his thinking and reasoning is very logical. The existence of laws imply a lawgiver.

No. What we call “the laws of the Universe” are just observations humans have made concerning the Universe; they aren’t actual created laws.

Maybe, but your moral laws are not embedded in the universe like His which have real life consequences if ignored in both in people's physical life and their spiritual life

Neither are Gods.

And millions DO listen to God's commands and try to obey them. Maybe a few besides you listen to your moral rules.

Millions OBEY my moral rules; probably because they perceive them as their own. But which is more important; to listen then ignore, or to obey even if they are unaware they are my rules?

If the Christian God exists then there is an objective moral standard,

In other words, there is no objective moral standard.

God's moral character which exists outside human minds thereby existing objectively. I am glad you agree that your moral standard is based on the same thing as Hitler's. So why do you condemn him? He was just making decisions based on his feelings like you. He should not be condemned just because his feelings are different from yours.

No; I condemn him because I don’t approve of his decisions.

No, God's moral standard exists outside human minds so it objectively exists just like animal instincts exist outside human minds so they objectively exist.

Objectivity is not defined as existing outside human minds. Care to try again?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

I provided a dictionary definition of objectivity, and I explained why I know what is objective. If that isn’t good enough, you need to explain what type of answer you are looking for.


The above has nothing to do with the “why” that we were discussing.
You gave an analogy of me reading a book that I believe to be true, and another person reading a book that he believes is true. Because we both believe our books are true, you asked how I could justify claiming his book false. My response was that you need to understand why I claim his book false.


No. If you are trying to convince someone, it is up to you to provide proof of your claim if you expect him to accept your view; he isn’t required to explain why he doesn’t believe you.
This is not about morality or any type of a statement of value, it is just basic rules of debate.

It depends on the claim that is made. If the claim is “Ken is alive”, Ken is the reference point and as long as you know what it means to be alive, you can see if this applies to Ken. The fact that it does means anybody who claims I am not alive is wrong. If the claim is a 1+1=2, the rules of math is the reference point so anybody who claims it does not equal 2 is wrong.

See above.
Once again; you need to prove that we are subjective beings, without the ability to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. All you’ve done thus far is

*proclaim we are subjective beings without proving that we are
*Proclaim to know objectivity requires the ability to site a frame of reference that everything is subjected to, without proving this claim has merit
*Proclaim humans lack this ability without proving that we do

In other words, all you’ve done thus far is make a series of proclamations without backing anything up
(Please attempt to answer this. A.K.A. don’t conveniently ignore this question.)

I provided a dictionary definition of objectivity, and I explained why I know what is objective. If that isn’t good enough, you need to explain what type of answer you are looking for.

Ken, from your answers here and all during our dialog, it is apparent that your understandings of objectivity and subjectivity are what need to be addressed. It appears that you are understanding objectivity simply as: what is real. And, subjectivity simply as: what one feels about X. While these statements are accurate to a degree, they lack the depth that you will need to understand as you attempt to continually debate and/or continue on in your education. These definitions will be challenged at an undergraduate 101 Philosophy class.

Regarding your understandings of objectivity and subjectivity, there is a more complete understanding of these definitions that apply to a debate; certainly a debate about whether or not objective morals exist and are knowable. These definitions provide much “deeper” and “fuller” senses of their meanings.

Objectivity’s meaning does indeed mean what exists and how one feels about something is an example of subjectivity. However, it is important to understand that objectivity implies a lack of dependency and subjectivity implies dependency. Let me simplify this.

The old 101 question of “if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” If the tree objectively exists it does make a sound. That is, the tree does not depend upon a perceiver (observer) for its existence. If it does not objectively exist then whether or not it makes a sound is subject to (dependent upon) a perceiver (or observer) for the tree to make a sound.

Please let me know if you understand these as this will help this conversation move forward.

In the scientific community, for example, scientists are observers, or perceiving subjects. This necessarily means that the scientist is subject to (dependent upon) phenomenon X’s existence for that scientist to be able to interpret phenomenon X. If you parallel this to the tree in the woods metaphor, you will hopefully begin to see the subjectivity of humans.

To bring this to your answers, as I have mentioned numerous times, you’ve already admitted that you perceive data; and, that you could be perceiving the data incorrectly. It is clear that you have not seen the inference to this. When you say “I interpret data” you are in fact stating that you are subject to (dependent upon) a data set to exist for you to be able to interpret it. You are in fact saying that you are subjective. I hope that you can begin to see this.

I will not take this further as there is a lot more to this topic to understand, debate, and discuss. It seems that it is best that you have a better understanding of these terms first.

Therefore, to your question of what definition I am looking for, I am looking for the most complete definition of the terms objectivity and subjectivity. Definitions that are accepted in the intellectual community. We are, after all, debating whether or not humans can know objective morality exists.


The above has nothing to do with the “why” that we were discussing.
You gave an analogy of me reading a book that I believe to be true, and another person reading a book that he believes is true. Because we both believe our books are true, you asked how I could justify claiming his book false. My response was that you need to understand why I claim his book false.

Again, your point was and is understood. However, I’ve realized that you do not comprehend what the meanings of my responses are. Here again is another example of your lack of understanding of a more complete meaning of objectivity and subjectivity. You’re answer and subsequent responses demonstrate that you are not comprehending that your “why” is a subjective response. This appears to be “going over your head.”

You are in fact stating that “I perceive that the Christian’s belief is based upon faith and that my belief is based upon what actually exists.” Both of these conclusions are your subjective perceptions; they are equal in quality. Your “why” (testability) is a subjective perception of value. In the academic world you would be required to provide reasons that explain why the value you hold (testability) is determinative. And, because you have not provided reasons, especially reasons that pass scrutiny, this would be classified by the academic community as a faith statement. Or, more accurately, a myth. I hope that you see that when I have been, over and over and over, asking you to bear the same burden that you demand of others that this expectation is reasonable scrutiny.

To try this another way, you are stating “my beliefs are based upon what is testable and the Christian’s is not.” However, these are still both your subjective perceptions and equal in quality. In these conclusions your perceptions are subject to (dependent upon) the following:

• Whether or not X actually exists
• Whether or not X exists in a form that can be tested
• Whether or not my test is a valid test
• Whether or not my test can accurately measure X
• So on and so on.

In other words, your perceptions cannot be accurate unless the above list has been met (dependency). That is to say that your perceptions are subjected to (subjective) these being accurate, accurately tested, accurately cataloged, etc.

These are the very items that a PhD candidate must address in his/her doctoral thesis. You do not realize that you are not addressing these in your responses. You are believing on faith that your perceptions are accurate. Again, this is fine for your personal life, but by any professional or academic standard it fails. I could go on, but it seems that it would be overwhelming.

It is clear that you demand in your debating that it is a priori factual that science is the arbiter of truth. Yet, it is also clear that you are not a scientist and your understandings of science are elementary. While, of course, you are free to debate anything and in any way that you like, your positions are subject to the same scrutiny that you wish to impose on others.


No. If you are trying to convince someone, it is up to you to provide proof of your claim if you expect him to accept your view; he isn’t required to explain why he doesn’t believe you.
This is not about morality or any type of a statement of value, it is just basic rules of debate.

Hopefully, from my responses above you will begin to see that here too you are making faith statements and that you have not demonstrated how and why these are determinative.


It depends on the claim that is made. If the claim is “Ken is alive”, Ken is the reference point and as long as you know what it means to be alive, you can see if this applies to Ken. The fact that it does means anybody who claims I am not alive is wrong. If the claim is a 1+1=2, the rules of math is the reference point so anybody who claims it does not equal 2 is wrong.

Here too, see my responses above. You are making faith statements.


See above.
Once again; you need to prove that we are subjective beings, without the ability to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. All you’ve done thus far is

*proclaim we are subjective beings without proving that we are
*Proclaim to know objectivity requires the ability to site a frame of reference that everything is subjected to, without proving this claim has merit
*Proclaim humans lack this ability without proving that we do

In other words, all you’ve done thus far is make a series of proclamations without backing anything up
(Please attempt to answer this. A.K.A. don’t conveniently ignore this question.)

It would have been wise if you would have consulted your dictionary before posting this as this demonstrates your lack of education. My statements and responses would never be classified as “proclamations.” However that may be, please read my responses above. If you do not comprehend them then please let me know and I will try to simplify them further.

It is clear that you hold a lot of faith in “science” despite it being obvious that you are not a scientist and your understandings of science are simple. This is so because scientists understand that they are subjective perceivers, or observers. In fact, no scientist would ever propose that his/her findings of evidence equaled exhaustive knowledge on any given topic. (This equals the scientist knowing his/her subjectivity.)

Regarding your specific point, hopefully you can begin to see that you’ve already demonstrated this point. You have refuted your own criticism. I truly hope that you can begin to see this.

Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

I provided a dictionary definition of objectivity, and I explained why I know what is objective. If that isn’t good enough, you need to explain what type of answer you are looking for.

Ken, from your answers here and all during our dialog, it is apparent that your understandings of objectivity and subjectivity are what need to be addressed. It appears that you are understanding objectivity simply as: what is real. And, subjectivity simply as: what one feels about X. While these statements are accurate to a degree, they lack the depth that you will need to understand as you attempt to continually debate and/or continue on in your education. These definitions will be challenged at an undergraduate 101 Philosophy class.

Regarding your understandings of objectivity and subjectivity, there is a more complete understanding of these definitions that apply to a debate; certainly a debate about whether or not objective morals exist and are knowable. These definitions provide much “deeper” and “fuller” senses of their meanings.

Objectivity’s meaning does indeed mean what exists and how one feels about something is an example of subjectivity. However, it is important to understand that objectivity implies a lack of dependency and subjectivity implies dependency. Let me simplify this.

The old 101 question of “if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” If the tree objectively exists it does make a sound. That is, the tree does not depend upon a perceiver (observer) for its existence. If it does not objectively exist then whether or not it makes a sound is subject to (dependent upon) a perceiver (or observer) for the tree to make a sound.

Please let me know if you understand these as this will help this conversation move forward.

In the scientific community, for example, scientists are observers, or perceiving subjects. This necessarily means that the scientist is subject to (dependent upon) phenomenon X’s existence for that scientist to be able to interpret phenomenon X. If you parallel this to the tree in the woods metaphor, you will hopefully begin to see the subjectivity of humans.

To bring this to your answers, as I have mentioned numerous times, you’ve already admitted that you perceive data; and, that you could be perceiving the data incorrectly. It is clear that you have not seen the inference to this. When you say “I interpret data” you are in fact stating that you are subject to (dependent upon) a data set to exist for you to be able to interpret it. You are in fact saying that you are subjective. I hope that you can begin to see this.

I will not take this further as there is a lot more to this topic to understand, debate, and discuss. It seems that it is best that you have a better understanding of these terms first.

Therefore, to your question of what definition I am looking for, I am looking for the most complete definition of the terms objectivity and subjectivity. Definitions that are accepted in the intellectual community. We are, after all, debating whether or not humans can know objective morality exists.


The above has nothing to do with the “why” that we were discussing.
You gave an analogy of me reading a book that I believe to be true, and another person reading a book that he believes is true. Because we both believe our books are true, you asked how I could justify claiming his book false. My response was that you need to understand why I claim his book false.

Again, your point was and is understood. However, I’ve realized that you do not comprehend what the meanings of my responses are. Here again is another example of your lack of understanding of a more complete meaning of objectivity and subjectivity. You’re answer and subsequent responses demonstrate that you are not comprehending that your “why” is a subjective response. This appears to be “going over your head.”

You are in fact stating that “I perceive that the Christian’s belief is based upon faith and that my belief is based upon what actually exists.” Both of these conclusions are your subjective perceptions; they are equal in quality. Your “why” (testability) is a subjective perception of value. In the academic world you would be required to provide reasons that explain why the value you hold (testability) is determinative. And, because you have not provided reasons, especially reasons that pass scrutiny, this would be classified by the academic community as a faith statement. Or, more accurately, a myth. I hope that you see that when I have been, over and over and over, asking you to bear the same burden that you demand of others that this expectation is reasonable scrutiny.

To try this another way, you are stating “my beliefs are based upon what is testable and the Christian’s is not.” However, these are still both your subjective perceptions and equal in quality. In these conclusions your perceptions are subject to (dependent upon) the following:

• Whether or not X actually exists
• Whether or not X exists in a form that can be tested
• Whether or not my test is a valid test
• Whether or not my test can accurately measure X
• So on and so on.

In other words, your perceptions cannot be accurate unless the above list has been met (dependency). That is to say that your perceptions are subjected to (subjective) these being accurate, accurately tested, accurately cataloged, etc.

These are the very items that a PhD candidate must address in his/her doctoral thesis. You do not realize that you are not addressing these in your responses. You are believing on faith that your perceptions are accurate. Again, this is fine for your personal life, but by any professional or academic standard it fails. I could go on, but it seems that it would be overwhelming.

It is clear that you demand in your debating that it is a priori factual that science is the arbiter of truth. Yet, it is also clear that you are not a scientist and your understandings of science are elementary. While, of course, you are free to debate anything and in any way that you like, your positions are subject to the same scrutiny that you wish to impose on others.


No. If you are trying to convince someone, it is up to you to provide proof of your claim if you expect him to accept your view; he isn’t required to explain why he doesn’t believe you.
This is not about morality or any type of a statement of value, it is just basic rules of debate.

Hopefully, from my responses above you will begin to see that here too you are making faith statements and that you have not demonstrated how and why these are determinative.


It depends on the claim that is made. If the claim is “Ken is alive”, Ken is the reference point and as long as you know what it means to be alive, you can see if this applies to Ken. The fact that it does means anybody who claims I am not alive is wrong. If the claim is a 1+1=2, the rules of math is the reference point so anybody who claims it does not equal 2 is wrong.

Here too, see my responses above. You are making faith statements.


See above.
Once again; you need to prove that we are subjective beings, without the ability to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. All you’ve done thus far is

*proclaim we are subjective beings without proving that we are
*Proclaim to know objectivity requires the ability to site a frame of reference that everything is subjected to, without proving this claim has merit
*Proclaim humans lack this ability without proving that we do

In other words, all you’ve done thus far is make a series of proclamations without backing anything up
(Please attempt to answer this. A.K.A. don’t conveniently ignore this question.)

It would have been wise if you would have consulted your dictionary before posting this as this demonstrates your lack of education. My statements and responses would never be classified as “proclamations.” However that may be, please read my responses above. If you do not comprehend them then please let me know and I will try to simplify them further.

It is clear that you hold a lot of faith in “science” despite it being obvious that you are not a scientist and your understandings of science are simple. This is so because scientists understand that they are subjective perceivers, or observers. In fact, no scientist would ever propose that his/her findings of evidence equaled exhaustive knowledge on any given topic. (This equals the scientist knowing his/her subjectivity.)

Regarding your specific point, hopefully you can begin to see that you’ve already demonstrated this point. You have refuted your own criticism. I truly hope that you can begin to see this.

Respectfully,

T R-R

According to the standards you are insisting on, nobody is justified in claiming morality is subjective or objective because there is really no way of knowing anything because as far as we know, everything we know about reality is wrong. (as I mentioned before) We could be just a brain in a vat being fed information via a computer somewhere, like in the Movie The Matrix; which would make this entire conversation meaningless. I don’t live my life nor do I hold conversations, or debates under such an assumption; I live my life, and hold conversations with the assumption that my experiences are real. So for the remainder of this conversation and any future others, for the sake of clarity, assume our perceived experiences are real. If we can’t do that, I don’t think there will be anything to talk about. Fair enough?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

According to the standards you are insisting on, nobody is justified in claiming morality is subjective or objective because there is really no way of knowing anything because as far as we know, everything we know about reality is wrong. (as I mentioned before) We could be just a brain in a vat being fed information via a computer somewhere, like in the Movie The Matrix; which would make this entire conversation meaningless. I don’t live my life nor do I hold conversations, or debates under such an assumption; I live my life, and hold conversations with the assumption that my experiences are real. So for the remainder of this conversation and any future others, for the sake of clarity, assume our perceived experiences are real. If we can’t do that, I don’t think there will be anything to talk about. Fair enough?

Ken, obviously you can end the conversation anytime that you like. The question that I have is, am I insisting on this standard? Or, is intellectual honesty insisting on it? Are you suggesting that this standard is in some way unfair? What do you mean?

Also, your deduction from this standard is well thought, but flawed. “There is really no way of knowing anything” is a statement of knowing. In other words, you are contradicting yourself when you conclude that, (and I am paraphrasing you,) you know that you cannot know anything.

Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken, obviously you can end the conversation anytime that you like. The question that I have is, am I insisting on this standard? Or, is intellectual honesty insisting on it?

You are. My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality. Also the fact that you have labeled yourself “Christian” tells me you don’t believe nor live your life according to this standard either. So if you don’t believe it, and I don’t believe it, why are we even discussing it?

Are you suggesting that this standard is in some way unfair? What do you mean?

It’s not that the standard is in anyway unfair, It’s just that if our perceived experiences do not reflect reality, how are we supposed to know what is real? If we don’t know what is real, I can’t think of anything to talk about; can you?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I notice you did not respond to my example of animal instincts. So do you deny that animal instincts objectively exist? I believe most scientists would disagree if you do.

efm: It's an irrelevant point.

My mind objectively exists. That does not mean that things that are a product of my mind, such as my value assessments, are objective in the same way.

But God's nature is not a product of His mind. God Himself is THE GOOD. So Euthrypo's dilemma is resolved by the biblical understanding of God. That is the third option, so I am not stuck with the two "horns" you mentioned.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, He did not choose His own nature and there is no independent standard to which is nature is being measured

efm: Yes, there is an independent standard to which you are measuring him. If anyone comes to you with a description of a Yahweh that orders genocide (for example), you would say no, you have it wrong. That is not Yahweh, because Yahweh would never order such a thing.
That necessarily implies an independent standard to which you are comparing him. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from being Yahweh.
You have chosen the horn of independent standard.

No, the standard I am comparing His behavior to is His nature. Ordering genocide (the killing of a group just because of who they are) goes against His nature that He has revealed to us.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, generally in most cases especially in areas of morality and salvation, someone's beliefs can be determined and judged to be right or wrong by studying the linguistic and historical context of the biblical texts.
efm: That will give you, at best, a linguistic and historical perspective of their writings. It does nothing whatsoever to provide an epistemology for 'revelation'.

We weren't discussing an epistemology of revelation. We were discussing how two people both Christians who already accept God's revelation determine who is correct in a disagreement over interpretation of that revelation. It is similar to any other science, when two scientists disagree over the interpretation of scientific data.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know that they are amoral?
efm: Because they don't enter into the realm of moral consideration. Which is to say, they don't necessarily concern harm and wellbeing.

Actually they do. Scientific studies have shown that homosexual behavior is bad for you both mentally and physically. It is also bad for human survival. See the Feb. 2001 issue of JAMA. Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Since you dont believe in objective morality

efm: I do believe in objective morality. Just not what you consider to be objective morality, which isn't objective at all.

Fraid so, mine is based on the objective nature of the GOOD, which is God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But you dont even know what is good or bad for such beings since you dont believe in objective morality or objective value.

efm: I do know what is 'good' or 'bad' for such beings. 'Good' is that which increases wellbeing, reduces harm, or does both. 'Bad' is that which reduces wellbeing, increases harm, or does both.

What is well being? If you cheat on your taxes and get rich is that increasing your well being?

efm: As to whether that is valued, that is necessarily subjective, and invoking Yahweh will not magically make it objective. Ever. 'Objective value' is an oxymoron.

No, we are created in the image of the Good, therefore we have good intrinsic objective value.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also what is your definition of sentient?
efm: As it pertains to this discussion - capable of experiencing harm or wellbeing.

Cattle can experience harm or well being, are all cattle ranchers murderers?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not denying that engaging in social activity is good for people, but do you have any actual studies that show that non-churchgoers are just as law abiding than church goers?
efm: Here's one, but you have to pay for it,

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x

But I encourage anyone reading along to do their own research. Just for example, try googling 'US states by crime rate' and 'least religious US states', and notice a blatant pattern emerge.

Even in those states that are more religious, the people that actually go to church regularly are more law abiding than the religious people that dont. Also, according to the General Social Survey from 2002-2004 showed that evangelicals "selflessly cared for others even when they disagreed with them" more than any other group except Black protestants and much more than the religiously unaffiliated.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because there have been multiple studies that show churchgoers are more law abiding.

efm: I am not aware of any that demonstrate an exclusive benefit of church attendance in this regard, so you will have to provide them if you want to make your point.

See the survey referenced above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But there is scientific evidence that the bible has a divine origin.
efm: I've seen what you consider to be 'evidence' on this point. I am unimpressed, to put it politely.

Well, so far it has not been refuted.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The value of humans is objective, because our value is based on our being created in the image of the creator.
efm: No, being 'created' is not a means of determining objectivity. You will not ever get around the fact that value is necessarily subjective, no matter how many theological buzzwords you invoke.

No, see above we are created in the image of the objective Good.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

You are. My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality. Also the fact that you have labeled yourself “Christian” tells me you don’t believe nor live your life according to this standard either. So if you don’t believe it, and I don’t believe it, why are we even discussing it?

It’s not that the standard is in anyway unfair, It’s just that if our perceived experiences do not reflect reality, how are we supposed to know what is real? If we don’t know what is real, I can’t think of anything to talk about; can you?

You are.

Ken, you later in this post write that the standard is not unfair in anyway, doesn’t this mean that to be truly intellectually honest to one’s self that this standard applies?


My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality.

It appears that you misspoke here, but I believe that I understand what you mean.

Again, whatever you choose to believe is fine with me, but without any means to demonstrate that your beliefs are objectively true and the Christian’s subjectively true, aren’t you being intellectually dishonest (in this stricter sense) when you challenge the Christian?

Please recall that in the very beginning of this debate I asked if you bore the same burden that you expected of Christians.

Also, isn’t this a semantic game when you hold that you are being “intellectually honest” (to yourself) when you have no objectively verified knowledge as to what intellectual honesty means? (That is, without the ability to demonstrate that intellectual honesty is a state that can be factually achieved.)

Therefore, do you see that apart from a strict adherence to this standard (the standard that you state that I am imposing) that strict intellectual honesty isn’t being met? I propose that intellectual honesty demands this and I simply accept it; and clearly argue for it.


Also the fact that you have labeled yourself “Christian” tells me you don’t believe nor live your life according to this standard either. So if you don’t believe it, and I don’t believe it, why are we even discussing it?

I have discussed this because you have not understood that you are, by the strict intellectually honest standard, in the same “place” that you believe the Christian is in; faith.


It’s not that the standard is in anyway unfair, It’s just that if our perceived experiences do not reflect reality, how are we supposed to know what is real? If we don’t know what is real, I can’t think of anything to talk about; can you?

Yes. Clearly, you are not “seeing” the intellectually tenable answer(s) to this enigma.

Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

You are.

Ken, you later in this post write that the standard is not unfair in anyway, doesn’t this mean that to be truly intellectually honest to one’s self that this standard applies?

No. Just because something is not unfair doesn’t mean it should be seriously considered.

(Ken) My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality.

(TRR reply)
It appears that you misspoke here, but I believe that I understand what you mean.

Again, whatever you choose to believe is fine with me, but without any means to demonstrate that your beliefs are objectively true and the Christian’s subjectively true, aren’t you being intellectually dishonest (in this stricter sense) when you challenge the Christian?

What beliefs did I claim are objectively true, and which Christian beliefs did I claim are subjectively true?

Also, isn’t this a semantic game when you hold that you are being “intellectually honest” (to yourself) when you have no objectively verified knowledge as to what intellectual honesty means? (That is, without the ability to demonstrate that intellectual honesty is a state that can be factually achieved.)

How do you know I have no objectively verifiable knowledge of what intellectual honesty means?

Therefore, do you see that apart from a strict adherence to this standard (the standard that you state that I am imposing) that strict intellectual honesty isn’t being met? I propose that intellectual honesty demands this and I simply accept it; and clearly argue for it.

Do you agree what may be intellectually honest for you might not be for me?

(Ken)Also the fact that you have labeled yourself “Christian” tells me you don’t believe nor live your life according to this standard either. So if you don’t believe it, and I don’t believe it, why are we even discussing it?

(TRR response)
I have discussed this because you have not understood that you are, by the strict intellectually honest standard, in the same “place” that you believe the Christian is in; faith.

Faith? Christians describe faith as the study of things hoped for evidence of things unseen. Unseen means blind; without evidence. So going by the Christian definition of faith, what have I claimed as true, without evidence?

(Ken)It’s not that the standard is in anyway unfair, It’s just that if our perceived experiences do not reflect reality, how are we supposed to know what is real? If we don’t know what is real, I can’t think of anything to talk about; can you?

(TRR response) Yes. Clearly, you are not “seeing” the intellectually tenable answer(s) to this enigma.

By all means; present them to me

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But God's nature is not a product of His mind.

My nature is not a product of my mind, either. I guess that makes my nature 'objective' as well, by this equation.

So Euthrypo's dilemma is resolved by the biblical understanding of God.

No it isn't. All you've done is reordered the dilemma. Case in point,

the standard I am comparing His behavior to is His nature.

And if his nature was such that he would order genocide, you would say that that being is not Yahweh.

Which necessarily means you are comparing his nature to some outside standard. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

We weren't discussing an epistemology of revelation. We were discussing how two people both Christians who already accept God's revelation determine who is correct in a disagreement over interpretation of that revelation. It is similar to any other science, when two scientists disagree over the interpretation of scientific data.

And in order to resolve that dispute, you would first need some epistemology of revelation.

Science has a workable epistemology. Revelation does not. So it's not remotely comparable.

Actually they do.

Actually they don't, not even the nearly 18 year-old study you cited. At best, you have is a correlation, not a causation, between homosexuality and anxiety, depression, etc.

Which doesn't surprise me, considering the amount of asinine stupidity and bullying they have to put up with on a daily basis.

Homosexuality is amoral. Not immoral.

Fraid so, mine is based on the objective nature of the GOOD, which is God.

I have a word for good already. It's called 'good', and it functions just fine without shoehorning vacuous non-concepts into the equation.

What is well being?

It's a number of things - health, access to basic commodities, literacy, and a number of other factors that are objectively quantifiable and necessitate no ontological basis in ancient Palestinian desert spirits, like the one you keep invoking.

If you cheat on your taxes and get rich is that increasing your well being?

Temporarily, maybe. Until you get caught. In the meantime, you are causing harm by not partaking in your fair share.

Notice though, that it always comes back to a consideration of harm and wellbeing, and that invoking Yahweh is utterly worthless in that equation.

No, we are created in the image of the Good, therefore we have good intrinsic objective value.

That is a complete non-sequitor. Show your work. How exactly does Yahweh impart 'intrinsic objective value'?

And good luck coherently defining 'objective value'.

Cattle can experience harm or well being

They sure do. Which is why I think eating meat is a moral consideration worth pondering. That is the kind of intellectual freedom you are allowed when you base your moral philosophy on reality, instead of an imaginary absolute authority.

Even in those states that are more religious, the people that actually go to church regularly are more law abiding than the religious people that dont.

And neither of them are more moral than secular/non-religious people, by any meaningful measurement. In fact, the statistics, when they do indicate a correlation, almost always indicate that they are less so - remember that complete fiasco, when you challenged atheists to compare crime statistics between North Carolina and New York City? I do.

Your moral philosophy fails at every conceivable level. It's internally incoherent. It's ontologically, epistemologically, and pragmatically vacuous. It turns its advocates into apologists for rape, genocide, murder, and slavery. And it's not even concerned with moral behavior in the first place.

Well, so far it has not been refuted.

You're confused. It's not anyone's obligation to disprove you. The burden of proof is yours. You have not met it.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

No. Just because something is not unfair doesn’t mean it should be seriously considered.


What beliefs did I claim are objectively true, and which Christian beliefs did I claim are subjectively true?

How do you know I have no objectively verifiable knowledge of what intellectual honesty means?


Do you agree what may be intellectually honest for you might not be for me?


Faith? Christians describe faith as the study of things hoped for evidence of things unseen. Unseen means blind; without evidence. So going by the Christian definition of faith, what have I claimed as true, without evidence?


By all means; present them to me

No. Just because something is not unfair doesn’t mean it should be seriously considered.

Ken, there are two points to consider. Firstly, is how you choose to live your life. It is perfectly fine if you wish to live your life under any belief system that you choose and by any standards that you accept for yourself. Secondly, is what passes academic, scientific, or intellectual standards. In the case of intellectual standards (which include academic and scientific), it is considered intellectually dishonest to not apply the most rigid standards.

For example, when I was writing my dissertation, as is true for all doctoral candidates, I received critiques from my academic advisers. Their critiques would be similar to, “you did not address X” or, “what about how Y informs this research.” In those cases I could not argue back, “it meets my standards, thus don’t you see that my research is complete. I am being intellectually honest to myself about how I define the academic standards.” I was required to meet all rigid critiques. All rigid standards. I could not have received my PhD had I used the standards that you accept for yourself.

By definition the term “intellectual honesty” demands the highest, most rigid standards. Therefore, if you, Ken, choose to accept the standard that you define for yourself, it is personally and societally acceptable, but intellectually dishonest by intellectual standards.



What beliefs did I claim are objectively true, and which Christian beliefs did I claim are subjectively true?

Rules of math for you, and morality for Christians.


How do you know I have no objectively verifiable knowledge of what intellectual honesty means?

Because you are a human; subjective being. To use my chemical reactions metaphor, you cannot demonstrate how your chemical reactions can “know” that they interpret data correctly. (There are “deeper” points here which I could argue, but I will leave this as is for now.)


Do you agree what may be intellectually honest for you might not be for me?

No. Intellectual honesty necessarily means that the most rigorous standards, critiques, etc. are met. I will agree that you can choose to believe that the standards that you settle for are sufficient enough for you to believe in your particular faith, but those standards are by no means intellectually honest.


Faith? Christians describe faith as the study of things hoped for evidence of things unseen. Unseen means blind; without evidence. So going by the Christian definition of faith, what have I claimed as true, without evidence?

This definition is incomplete. Faith indeed can mean blind, without evidence. But, it can also mean having faith in something known. For example, if your mother were to call you tonight and ask if she could meet you for lunch tomorrow. (In this example you do not live with your mother.) You truly don’t know if she, will be at the restaurant tomorrow. You would take it on faith that she would show up. This “faith” is faith in what is known and not blind. In my analogy, you know your mother. You know she is true to her word. And, therefore, you have every reason to believe that she will indeed meet you at the restaurant tomorrow. For the Christian, the faith (belief) is in a real God. Thus, the Christian views his/her definition as the latter.

I do realize that I have not, to date, substantiated whether or not the Christian God really exists and therefore the Christian is justified in believing the latter. I, nonetheless, am explaining the differences. You, of course, could argue that you are doing the same. That is, you could argue, “I see the world and therefore, I believe in what I believe is known to me.” If you were to argue this, I would accept that they are equal in quality in that neither, at this point, is substantiated. Both are faith statements.


By all means; present them to me

I ask that as we enter this discussion, that we wrap up the previous discussions first. We can do this simultaneously, but it makes sense to have completion of our other debate first.

Regarding intellectually tenable answer(s):

It is tenable to know that one has objectively true knowledge IF, a human being were to have an objective reference point. A truly objective reference point does provide the human a point of verification whereby the human being could then truly know.

(However, this definitely poses further problems. How, can the subjective being know what an objective reference point is? Afterall, (and I have spent many posts on this issue) my subjective guess as to what is objective truth is as equally as unverifiable as is yours.)

I will stop here. Do you understand this?


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Just because something is not unfair doesn’t mean it should be seriously considered.

Ken, there are two points to consider. Firstly, is how you choose to live your life. It is perfectly fine if you wish to live your life under any belief system that you choose and by any standards that you accept for yourself.

What belief system are you talking about that I live my life under? Do tell.

Secondly, is what passes academic, scientific, or intellectual standards. In the case of intellectual standards (which include academic and scientific), it is considered intellectually dishonest to not apply the most rigid standards.

It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality; those involved in academic, scientific and intellectual standards that you speak of don't live their lives this way, and neither do I.

For example, when I was writing my dissertation, as is true for all doctoral candidates, I received critiques from my academic advisers. Their critiques would be similar to, “you did not address X” or, “what about how Y informs this research.” In those cases I could not argue back, “it meets my standards, thus don’t you see that my research is complete. I am being intellectually honest to myself about how I define the academic standards.” I was required to meet all rigid critiques. All rigid standards. I could not have received my PhD had I used the standards that you accept for yourself.

Welcome to the real world my friend! In the real world, we don't behave, discuss, or reason as if we are putting together a dissertation for a PHD, we reason in accordance to what makes sense; and to reason that our empirical experiences are not real, that we could be just a brain in a vat being fed information via a Computer does not make sense.

What beliefs did I claim are objectively true, and which Christian beliefs did I claim are subjectively true?

Rules of math for you, and morality for Christians.

Why is this so difficult or you to understand? Tell me what you aren't getting and I will gladly explain it to you.

How do you know I have no objectively verifiable knowledge of what intellectual honesty means?

Because you are a human; subjective being. To use my chemical reactions metaphor, you cannot demonstrate how your chemical reactions can “know” that they interpret data correctly. (There are “deeper” points here which I could argue, but I will leave this as is for now.)

Again; to know means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Confirmation of brain chemical reactions are not necessary to achieve this; if it were you wouldn't be able to claim what I know or don't know, without demonstrating yourself how YOUR chemical reactions can know that they are interpreting data correctly concerning myself

Do you agree what may be intellectually honest for you might not be for me?

No. Intellectual honesty necessarily means that the most rigorous standards, critiques, etc. are met. I will agree that you can choose to believe that the standards that you settle for are sufficient enough for you to believe in your particular faith, but those standards are by no means intellectually honest.

First of all; what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person. Second, if what you call intellectual honesty includes investigating the possibility that I could be a brain in a vat being fed information via a computer like in the movie “the Matrix”, or inspecting my brain chemicals to make sure they are functioning properly so I can know that what appears real IS real; If this is your idea of intellectual honesty, no offense intended; but I don’t think I could care any less about your idea of intellectual honesty; that’s just some stuff you can keep to yourself bruh!

Faith? Christians describe faith as the study of things hoped for evidence of things unseen. Unseen means blind; without evidence. So going by the Christian definition of faith, what have I claimed as true, without evidence?

This definition is incomplete. Faith indeed can mean blind, without evidence. But, it can also mean having faith in something known. For example, if your mother were to call you tonight and ask if she could meet you for lunch tomorrow. (In this example you do not live with your mother.) You truly don’t know if she, will be at the restaurant tomorrow. You would take it on faith that she would show up. This “faith” is faith in what is known and not blind. In my analogy, you know your mother. You know she is true to her word. And, therefore, you have every reason to believe that she will indeed meet you at the restaurant tomorrow. For the Christian, the faith (belief) is in a real God. Thus, the Christian views his/her definition as the latter.

Your Bible says faith is “unseen”. If belief has evidence, it is no longer unseen, it is no longer faith, but reason. To use faith this way makes the term meaningless. However if you wish to use the term faith that way, for the sake of our conversations I will respect that as what you are talking about when you use the term from now on.

Regarding intellectually tenable answer(s):

It is tenable to know that one has objectively true knowledge IF, a human being were to have an objective reference point. A truly objective reference point does provide the human a point of verification whereby the human being could then truly know.

(However, this definitely poses further problems. How, can the subjective being know what an objective reference point is? Afterall, (and I have spent many posts on this issue) my subjective guess as to what is objective truth is as equally as unverifiable as is yours.)

I will stop here. Do you understand this?

I've answered this already in post #2003

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Hitler and Stalin thought that they were furthering the well being of their people by slaughtering those they thought were enemies of their people.
efm: They thought that, and they were wrong. People being wrong in their assessment does not change the fact that harm and wellbeing are objectively quantifiable. People are wrong about all sorts of things that are objectively quantifiable, all the time.

How do you know that they were wrong? Just because you personally dont like sentient beings being killed, doesn't mean that is actually wrong to do so. According to evolutionary theory, there is nothing special about sentient beings.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So is Yahweh what?
efm: Utterly irrelevant to morality.

Even assuming he exists, there is no means of gleaning if he has a moral code.

Even assuming he exists, and that he has a moral code, there is no means of gleaning what that moral code is.

Even assuming he exists, and that he has a moral code, and that we have a means of gleaning what that moral code is, there is no reason why that code should necessarily be adopted.

No, There is strong evidence He exists and has a moral code and the basics of it are quite easily gleaned and understood. But yes, since one of the moral principles created by God is freedom of conscience, you are free to ignore His moral principles except in a society where His moral laws dealing with crimes are incorporated into the legal code, then you would have to face possible criminal charges.

 

[the iconoclast]

Personal experience is usually enough to cause me to believe; unless the experience convinces me I'm going crazy....

Hey hey kenny

Why do you believe you cannot have a personal experience with Jesus?

Cheers

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How do you know that they were wrong? Just because you personally dont like sentient beings being killed

The exact same way I know someone is wrong if they say 'drinking a pint of motor oil is healthy for you'. Harm is objectively quantifiable, and drinking motor oil is demonstrably harmful. So is mass murder.

What I 'personally like' is utterly irrelevant to that equation.

No, There is strong evidence He exists and has a moral code and the basics of it are quite easily gleaned and understood

You can't substantiate any of this. If you could, you would have by now. Someone somewhere would have in the past few millennia, and no one has.

But suppose I grant it all to you - that Yahweh exists, that he has a moral code, and than you can realiably and accurately glean what that moral code is.

Why should anyone necessarily adopt that as their own moral code?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

What belief system are you talking about that I live my life under? Do tell.


It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality; those involved in academic, scientific and intellectual standards that you speak of don't live their lives this way, and neither do I.


Welcome to the real world my friend! In the real world, we don't behave, discuss, or reason as if we are putting together a dissertation for a PHD, we reason in accordance to what makes sense; and to reason that our empirical experiences are not real, that we could be just a brain in a vat being fed information via a Computer does not make sense.



Why is this so difficult or you to understand? Tell me what you aren't getting and I will gladly explain it to you.




Again; to know means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Confirmation of brain chemical reactions are not necessary to achieve this; if it were you wouldn't be able to claim what I know or don't know, without demonstrating yourself how YOUR chemical reactions can know that they are interpreting data correctly concerning myself



First of all; what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person. Second, if what you call intellectual honesty includes investigating the possibility that I could be a brain in a vat being fed information via a computer like in the movie “the Matrix”, or inspecting my brain chemicals to make sure they are functioning properly so I can know that what appears real IS real; If this is your idea of intellectual honesty, no offense intended; but I don’t think I could care any less about your idea of intellectual honesty; that’s just some stuff you can keep to yourself bruh!


Your Bible says faith is “unseen”. If belief has evidence, it is no longer unseen, it is no longer faith, but reason. To use faith this way makes the term meaningless. However if you wish to use the term faith that way, for the sake of our conversations I will respect that as what you are talking about when you use the term from now on.


I've answered this already in post #2003

What belief system are you talking about that I live my life under? Do tell.

Again, humanism.


It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality; those involved in academic, scientific and intellectual standards that you speak of don't live their lives this way, and neither do I.

I hope that you see that you are attempting to, as you once wrote, have your cake and eat it too. Here you are arguing that your “empirical experiences” are a sufficient basis for you to live your life. Yet you argue the Christian’s empirical experiences, certainly as they relate to the notion of objective morality, are insufficient. I hope that you see your contradiction.


Welcome to the real world my friend! In the real world, we don't behave, discuss, or reason as if we are putting together a dissertation for a PHD, we reason in accordance to what makes sense; and to reason that our empirical experiences are not real, that we could be just a brain in a vat being fed information via a Computer does not make sense.

I hope that you can see that this is another instance of your contradictions. You have, and likely will again in the future, argue the supremacy of science (See your post #1969 to Ed1Wolf). Now, you wish to diminish the scientific standards. I hope you see that this is amateurish.


Why is this so difficult or you to understand? Tell me what you aren't getting and I will gladly explain it to you.

I am “getting” that your world view accepts a belief in ontology. I am challenging you to live by the standard that you expect the Christian to live by. So far, and again here, you are offering circular logic as “demonstrable proof” that you “know” objective truth. Your logic is self-created (your “empirical experiences”) and because you find support in your beliefs, you feel justified. This is exactly how you criticize the Christian. It is amazing that you somehow cannot see your hypocrisy.


Again; to know means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Confirmation of brain chemical reactions are not necessary to achieve this; if it were you wouldn't be able to claim what I know or don't know, without demonstrating yourself how YOUR chemical reactions can know that they are interpreting data correctly concerning myself

This is not testable, which at one time was your standard. Apparently, you are now devolving into post-modernist arguments in an attempt to “save face” in this debate. Regarding, your definition that you wrote where you posit that “to know means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt” there are two points that I will bring up. (There are more points I could argue, but two will suffice to demonstrate the hypocrisy and the amateurism.)

By this definition, then, therefore, the Christian knows “objective morality” simply by being “convinced beyond any shadow of doubt.” Here you refute your earlier point, (and this is a point of hypocrisy), if you do not acknowledge the Christian who is “convinced beyond any shadow of doubt” knows objective morality.

Then the earlier scientists who “knew” that the earth was flat because they were “convinced beyond any shadow of doubt” were objectively correct. Here you demonstrate that you are, once again, not considering all of the implications of the statements that you make.


First of all; what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person. Second, if what you call intellectual honesty includes investigating the possibility that I could be a brain in a vat being fed information via a computer like in the movie “the Matrix”, or inspecting my brain chemicals to make sure they are functioning properly so I can know that what appears real IS real; If this is your idea of intellectual honesty, no offense intended; but I don’t think I could care any less about your idea of intellectual honesty; that’s just some stuff you can keep to yourself bruh!

Here again you demonstrate that you are attempting to “have your cake and eat it too.” It is amateurish to demand that science is the arbiter of truth when the argument suits you and then, when confronted with the scientific standards, claim that they do not apply to you.

Regarding your point “what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person” then, to be honest to yourself, this applies equally to the Christian. And, if the Christian believes that “blind faith” is the standard to know objective morality, then you have not basis to refute that the Christian does not know objective morality. You, to be honest to yourself, could not expect that the Christian meet any other standard than that chosen by the Christian.


Your Bible says faith is “unseen”. If belief has evidence, it is no longer unseen, it is no longer faith, but reason. To use faith this way makes the term meaningless. However if you wish to use the term faith that way, for the sake of our conversations I will respect that as what you are talking about when you use the term from now on.

Surely you will agree that context is important and paramount. You, clearly, are imposing your understanding of the word “unseen” into the Biblical meaning. The whole of the Jewish and Christian faiths is based on a real God who exists and who has spoken. This has always been the case (for the “orthodox” believers) (I mean orthodox in the academic sense and not religious denominational sense) and never has it been true that these faiths believed apart from this.

Also, to be strict in your definition, which I expect that you won’t be, you will never “see” tomorrow, but you will always believe that there will be a tomorrow. By your definition, believing that there will be a tomorrow is a belief without reason.


I've answered this already in post #2003

In your post #2003, you used circular logic. You argued that “Ken is the reference point.” However, Ken has no testable method (your one time standard) to:

1. Know that Ken exists
2. Know if Ken is perceiving data
3. Know that if Ken exists that he is interpreting data correctly
4. Etc.
5. Etc.

Do you understand that your proposed method, self-verification, fails by the scientific and intellectually honest standards? If the Christian were to argue using your proposed method the following statement is then, therefore, proven to be objective truth.

• The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.

It is clear that you would never accept this from the Christian. But, somehow you accept this from yourself. Amazing.

Your whole argument is that I, Ken, create objective truth. Yet you do not apply this standard to the Christian. You on one hand demand the Christian meet your standard, but on the other hand expect the Christian to accept your subjective standards. That is sad.


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey kenny

Why do you believe you cannot have a personal experience with Jesus?

Cheers

Jesus died over 2000 years ago.