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

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Again, it is extremely unlikely that those types of people sincerely repent if they even get the chance since in many cases they are either killed by the government or someone else and that is exactly what happened with Dahmer. People like that are usually not ashamed or feel guilty of what they have done. From what I have read Dahmer only "converted" because of pressure from his father not out any real sense of remorse or guilt. Most of his life and while he committed these acts he was an atheist and even said that since there was no God, he did not have to worry about getting punished in the afterlife.

efm: He said that after he converted. Which you said wasn't a sincere conversion. How convenient that you get to pick and choose when his words are sincere, and when they aren't.

Only God knows for sure if he was sincere, but the circumstances that I read about his conversion do not sound sincere.

efm: I don't deny that his father definitely was an opportunistic jackass, who exploited his son's conversion as a piece of propaganda for his creationist pseudo-science. That kind of behavior makes him extremely typical among professional creationists.

Not the ones I know.

efm: But that shouldn't concern you. Nor should the sincerity of his conversion concern you. What should concern you is whether it is possible at all, within your system of 'salvation', for someone like Dahmer to convert and go to heaven, while his victims suffer in hell forever. It is possible, and that is the problem you should be trying to address.

If you read about the Nuremburg trials, you see that those types of people do not want to believe they did anything wrong or they rationalize it away with excuses like they were forced to do it or etc. Such people would probably never sincerely repent. Given that only God knows the whole story and picture, you dont know that it is a problem. Also, even if it appears to be a problem, atheism doesn't provide any chance for justice at all, since justice does not even actually exist for the atheist. If atheism is true, then Hitler and Dahmer were just doing what evolution and their brain chemistry programmed them to do and therefore are not really responsible for their actions.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
See above about Dahmer but there are also different levels in heaven. So a sincere deathbed conversion after a life of terrible sin, at the best would be the lowest levels of heaven.
No, we dont know that, some may have been only backslid for a time and sincerely felt guilty about their behavior and may have repented many times before of their sinful sexual behavior and therefore will be in heaven.

efm: The internal critique is that under your moral system, behavior is irrelevant, and only belief is pertinent. As such, a serial rapist, torturer and murderer could go to heaven while an atheist philanthropist goes to hell.

No, Christ said if you love me you will obey my commandments. Therefore, just giving lip service to Christ will not save you. This is the plain teaching of the bible.

efm: Your response to this critique so far has been twofold.

First, you say it's unlikely. To that I say, so what? Suppose it happens only once in the entire history of humanity. The fact that it is possible at all is the critique, and this doesn't answer that critique.

Since you dont know the whole picture, you don't actually know that there is something to critique. God knows the whole picture and therefore is in a much better position to mete out true justice. Which btw if there is no God then justice does not even exist. There have been many situations in history where people think they know what happened and may think it was an injustice, but then later it was found that the story that everybody thought happened was totally wrong. An example is the shooting of the young black man in Ferguson Missouri. So it may be with what you think is an injustice since you dont know the whole story.

efm: Furthermore, one needn't appeal to such extremes to make the point. Any type of believer goes to a reward, and any type of atheist goes to punishment. They could have spent their lives acting in complete destruction, complete mediocrity, or complete service to wellbeing, but all that matters is what they believe at the point of death. Which illustrates the fact that behavior is utterly irrelevant to your moral philosophy. Only belief is pertinent.

No, belief and behavior are of equal importance as I demonstrated above with Christ's quote. Rejection of the Great King and Judge of the Universe whose existence can so obviously be deduced from creation and sacrificed His son to save us, is a very grievous act where as long as you are not mentally handicapped, you are without excuse.

efm: Secondly, you assert there are different 'levels' of heaven and hell. That's barely a response at all. The idea that the rapist-tortured-murderer enjoys a lesser heaven while the atheist philanthropist suffers a lesser hell does nothing at all to address the gaping chasm between the primacy of belief and the irrelevancy of behavior in your moral philosophy. It's like trying to patch an amputated leg with a band-aid.

Overall, this is an extremely weak response.

No, see above about behavior and the whole picture.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, we dont know that, some may have been only backslid for a time and sincerely felt guilty about their behavior and may have repented many times before of their sinful sexual behavior and therefore will be in heaven.
efm: I don't have to 'know' that to make my point - if they didn't believe in Yahweh and his 'salvation', they went to an eternity in hell, after being raped, tortured, murdered and eaten by Dahmer. That is a necessary implication of the moral philosophy you are proposing. Saying 'maybe some of them didn't' is not answer to this.

Nevertheless, in atheist moral philosophy there is 100% no justice for the Dahmers and Hitlers. You may begrudge one Dahmer that sincerely repented and "avoided" justice, but in an atheistic world they ALL escape justice.

 

[stevil]

Nevertheless, in atheist moral philosophy

There is no such thing as atheist moral philosophy. Being an atheist simply means that one lacks a belief in gods. There is no default atheist moral position. Atheism isn't a philosophy.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Only God knows for sure if he was sincere, but the circumstances that I read about his conversion do not sound sincere.

If you read about the Nuremburg trials, you see that those types of people do not want to believe they did anything wrong or they rationalize it away with excuses like they were forced to do it or etc. Such people would probably never sincerely repent. Given that only God knows the whole story and picture, you dont know that it is a problem. Also, even if it appears to be a problem, atheism doesn't provide any chance for justice at all, since justice does not even actually exist for the atheist. If atheism is true, then Hitler and Dahmer were just doing what evolution and their brain chemistry programmed them to do and therefore are not really responsible for their actions.

No, Christ said if you love me you will obey my commandments. Therefore, just giving lip service to Christ will not save you. This is the plain teaching of the bible.

Again, none of this addresses the issue. All you did was reword the same stuff you said before. If it is possible at all within your system - and it is - then it's a valid internal critique. You don't know that any of these people are just paying 'lip service' and aren't sincere. I don't know either, but my point doesn't rest on my knowing.

Since you dont know the whole picture, you don't actually know that there is something to critique. God knows the whole picture and therefore is in a much better position to mete out true justice.

A good judge will mete out punishment in proportion to the crime.

So, eternally punishing someone for a finite crime is the opposite of justice.

No, belief and behavior are of equal importance

If someone can spend their life as an atheist philanthropist and go to hell forever, while another can spend their's as a torture-murdering serial rapist and go to heaven - and you have provided zero argument that they can't - then no, they absolutely are not equal.

Rejection of the Great King and Judge of the Universe whose existence can so obviously be deduced from creation and sacrificed His son to save us, is a very grievous act where as long as you are not mentally handicapped, you are without excuse.

This is a very weak attempt to make disbelief sound worthy of eternal torture.

Firstly, what kind of 'supreme being' is even capable of suffering offense in the first place?

Secondly, I do have an excuse - I know a thing or two about science, and how to apply logical scrutiny. As such, I am incapable of being convinced by the extremely crappy arguments presented by the people who purport to speak on behalf of Yahweh, which is apparently all he has to offer.

Nevertheless, in atheist moral philosophy

There is no 'atheist moral philosophy'. One may be atheist and subscribe to any number of moral philosophies, just not any theistic ones.

There is also no single 'theistic moral philosophy', which is why I am always careful not to ascribe beliefs to people that they don't hold. A discussion with a Calvinist would be very different than a discussion with an Arminian, for example. I would hope to have the same courtesy extended to me, but that seems to be too much to ask of 99% of apologists.

there is 100% no justice for the Dahmers and Hitlers.

Depends what you mean by 'justice'.

If you mean the fake, cartoon version of 'justice' you're talking about, where people suffer eternal punishment for finite sins, including the 'sin' of disbelief, then you're right.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

No; When I look at my body its existence is confirmed by everyone else I come in contact with. Everyday I come in contact with hundreds of people and 100% of the people I come in contact with see the exact same thing I see down to the smallest detail. With morality, though many may agree on the basics, everybody I know of will eventually disagree on one moral issue or another; I’ve never seen a case where two people will agree 100% of the time with every moral issue. This tells me the existence of my physical body is objective, and morality is subjective.


The fact that 100% of the people I come in contact with interprets the data exactly as I do



No; What would you consider a verified starting point? Could you give an example please?

No; What would you call a legitimate reference point? Example please?


What do you mean when you speak of the ability to see morality?


Again' what do you mean by this?

Ken, I mean this with respect, but your responses demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge on the subjects at hand. It would be wise for you to learn more before you choose to engage in these types of dialogs. Perhaps you find enjoyment when you are able to “debate” with an undereducated Christian, which there are many, and “box” said Christian into a corner. However, if that is the case, it is childish for one undereducated person to “box” another undereducated person into a corner.

Your responses demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Existentialist philosophy and how it has shaped the modern day west. Also, I realize that you’ve referenced the movie The Matrix several times however, I have never viewed the movie and I have no plans to do so. I bring this up because, if you learn via that art form, I suggest that you view the movie The Hour of the Wolf by Ingmar Bergman. It is by no means a “Christian” movie. In fact, it would likely be condemned by segments of the wider Christian community. It does have several scenes that if you are underage, you’ll need permission from your parents to view, but otherwise Mr. Bergman depicts a person who cannot differentiate his dreams from reality. It is categorized as a horror film but, it does not resemble any modern day horror films. This film accurately depicts the dilemma of your “answers.”


Simply put, your answers utterly fail here. I will try to explain this to you in the simplest form.

No; When I look at my body its existence is confirmed by everyone else I come in contact with. Everyday I come in contact with hundreds of people and 100% of the people I come in contact with see the exact same thing I see down to the smallest detail. With morality, though many may agree on the basics, everybody I know of will eventually disagree on one moral issue or another; I’ve never seen a case where two people will agree 100% of the time with every moral issue. This tells me the existence of my physical body is objective, and morality is subjective.

Here you are offering circular logic. Again, I will try to simplify this for you.

The question is: how can you know that your experiences are objectively true?

To put this into the form of an equation, how do you know that X is objectively true?

For the honest skeptic, intellectual, scientist, etc., when the person answering this question states “ I know X is true because X confirms to me it is true” the skeptic et. al., would not accept this as an honest answer, nor an honest attempt at an answer. To put this into your response, your response reads:

Ken: my experiences are objectively true because my experiences confirm to me that my experiences are objectively true.

Don’t you see that this is circular logic? This answer, non-answer really, necessarily means “I know what I experience is objectively true because I experience them.” At no point does this even attempt to demonstrate objectivity. At no point do you confirm, or even attempt to confirm, that you interpret your experiences factually. Your whole “answer” is subjective and self-justifying. I hope that you can see this. And, I especially hope that you will begin to be honest with yourself.


The fact that 100% of the people I come in contact with interprets the data exactly as I do

See above.


No; What would you consider a verified starting point? Could you give an example please?

Something that is wholly devoid of subjectivity. Yes, I can offer you an example that is intellectually tenable, but we first need to conclude this first order of debate before I will embark on that course.


No; What would you call a legitimate reference point? Example please?

See above


What do you mean when you speak of the ability to see morality?

This question demonstrates your lack of knowledge of abstractions. (This is one reason why I recommend to you that you educate yourself further before you engage in these types of debates.)

It is a common phrase to say, “do you see what I mean?” You’ve exulted math, but you do not realize that math is an abstraction. For example, what does 1 look like? (sight) What does 1 smell like? (smell) What does 1 sound like? (hearing) What does 1 feel like? (touch). There isn’t an answer to any of these. You could use these questions for, say, one apple, one orange, one blade of grass but, not for 1 itself. That is because 1 is an abstraction. It exists in the minds of human beings; that is, it is an abstraction.

So, to use it as I have in my last post, I am using “see” in the sense of “seeing” an abstraction; as in, how you “see” 1.


Again' what do you mean by this?

Since you have not demonstrated any form or claim to objectivity as a basis for your beliefs, and because you expect others to accept that your experiences are objectively true without any verification of them at all, and because you insist that your definitions of objectivity and subjectivity be accepted as factual without confirmation that they are, you, in fact, are demanding others believe in your structural systems (of “logic” for example) for “honest” debate to proceed. This is the definition of Ken making the rules.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken, I mean this with respect, but your responses demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge on the subjects at hand. It would be wise for you to learn more before you choose to engage in these types of dialogs. Perhaps you find enjoyment when you are able to “debate” with an undereducated Christian, which there are many, and “box” said Christian into a corner. However, if that is the case, it is childish for one undereducated person to “box” another undereducated person into a corner.

Your responses demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Existentialist philosophy and how it has shaped the modern day west. Also, I realize that you’ve referenced the movie The Matrix several times however, I have never viewed the movie and I have no plans to do so. I bring this up because, if you learn via that art form, I suggest that you view the movie The Hour of the Wolf by Ingmar Bergman. It is by no means a “Christian” movie. In fact, it would likely be condemned by segments of the wider Christian community. It does have several scenes that if you are underage, you’ll need permission from your parents to view, but otherwise Mr. Bergman depicts a person who cannot differentiate his dreams from reality. It is categorized as a horror film but, it does not resemble any modern day horror films. This film accurately depicts the dilemma of your “answers.”


Simply put, your answers utterly fail here. I will try to explain this to you in the simplest form.

No; When I look at my body its existence is confirmed by everyone else I come in contact with. Everyday I come in contact with hundreds of people and 100% of the people I come in contact with see the exact same thing I see down to the smallest detail. With morality, though many may agree on the basics, everybody I know of will eventually disagree on one moral issue or another; I’ve never seen a case where two people will agree 100% of the time with every moral issue. This tells me the existence of my physical body is objective, and morality is subjective.

Here you are offering circular logic. Again, I will try to simplify this for you.

The question is: how can you know that your experiences are objectively true?

To put this into the form of an equation, how do you know that X is objectively true?

For the honest skeptic, intellectual, scientist, etc., when the person answering this question states “ I know X is true because X confirms to me it is true” the skeptic et. al., would not accept this as an honest answer, nor an honest attempt at an answer. To put this into your response, your response reads:

Ken: my experiences are objectively true because my experiences confirm to me that my experiences are objectively true.

Don’t you see that this is circular logic? This answer, non-answer really, necessarily means “I know what I experience is objectively true because I experience them.” At no point does this even attempt to demonstrate objectivity. At no point do you confirm, or even attempt to confirm, that you interpret your experiences factually. Your whole “answer” is subjective and self-justifying. I hope that you can see this. And, I especially hope that you will begin to be honest with yourself.


The fact that 100% of the people I come in contact with interprets the data exactly as I do

See above.


No; What would you consider a verified starting point? Could you give an example please?

Something that is wholly devoid of subjectivity. Yes, I can offer you an example that is intellectually tenable, but we first need to conclude this first order of debate before I will embark on that course.


No; What would you call a legitimate reference point? Example please?

See above


What do you mean when you speak of the ability to see morality?

This question demonstrates your lack of knowledge of abstractions. (This is one reason why I recommend to you that you educate yourself further before you engage in these types of debates.)

It is a common phrase to say, “do you see what I mean?” You’ve exulted math, but you do not realize that math is an abstraction. For example, what does 1 look like? (sight) What does 1 smell like? (smell) What does 1 sound like? (hearing) What does 1 feel like? (touch). There isn’t an answer to any of these. You could use these questions for, say, one apple, one orange, one blade of grass but, not for 1 itself. That is because 1 is an abstraction. It exists in the minds of human beings; that is, it is an abstraction.

So, to use it as I have in my last post, I am using “see” in the sense of “seeing” an abstraction; as in, how you “see” 1.


Again' what do you mean by this?

Since you have not demonstrated any form or claim to objectivity as a basis for your beliefs, and because you expect others to accept that your experiences are objectively true without any verification of them at all, and because you insist that your definitions of objectivity and subjectivity be accepted as factual without confirmation that they are, you, in fact, are demanding others believe in your structural systems (of “logic” for example) for “honest” debate to proceed. This is the definition of Ken making the rules.

Respectfully,
T R-R

If you don't like my answers, give me an example of the type of answer you are looking for.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

If you don't like my answers, give me an example of the type of answer you are looking for.

Any answer that is truly objective. Any answer that does not require you, a subjective human, (or any other subjective being) to experience it, or interpret it, etc. Unlike The Hour of the Wolf character I wrote of in my last post, who had no means to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity, any answer that can demonstrate a truly objective reference point.
Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Any answer that is truly objective. Any answer that does not require you, a subjective human, (or any other subjective being) to experience it, or interpret it, etc. Unlike The Hour of the Wolf character I wrote of in my last post, who had no means to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity, any answer that can demonstrate a truly objective reference point.
Respectfully,
T R-R

Let's try it again.
If you don't like my answer, please give an EXAMPLE of the type of answer you are looking for.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Let's try it again.
If you don't like my answer, please give an EXAMPLE of the type of answer you are looking for.

I do understand that you have a hard time with abstractions. The answer that I gave does give an example. You'll need to understand that, like math, this is a concept that you'll need to "wrap your mind around."

That being said, to simplify the concept for you; a being, or an entity, or a force, or a ___ (whatever) that is truly objective. A being, or an entity, or a force, or a ___ (whatever) that does not require you, a subjective human, (or any other subjective being) to experience it, or interpret it, etc.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

I do understand that you have a hard time with abstractions. The answer that I gave does give an example. You'll need to understand that, like math, this is a concept that you'll need to "wrap your mind around."

That being said, to simplify the concept for you; a being, or an entity, or a force, or a ___ (whatever) that is truly objective. A being, or an entity, or a force, or a ___ (whatever) that does not require you, a subjective human, (or any other subjective being) to experience it, or interpret it, etc.

Respectfully,
T R-R

You aren't going to answer my question are you! I gave one simple request and you've done everything but what I asked. I asked for an example, you responded with what you are not looking for, or attempted to articulate what you are looking for, but you refuse to articulate an example of what you are looking for. Why is that? If there is no such answer that will satisfy you, admit it!! If there is, all I'm asking for is an example.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed1wolf said: ↑
In what way?
efm: In what way are you making an example of yourself? How about the fact that you copied, word for word, without citation, from a fraud who made up a non-existent 'study' in support of their magic-addled, pseudo-scientific garbage.

I admitted I made mistake by not citing it. But it has not been proven that Dr. Gauger is a fraud, she has published many articles in respectable scientific journals as I posted and went to reputable university and obtained PhD. And just because someone strongly biased against creationists at the university denies that the study she cited exists, does not mean that it actually does not exist.

efm: How about the fact that you continue to address cosmological concepts that you blatantly, manifestly have never studied in any meaningful fashion.

While I am not a cosmologist, but a biologist, I have in recent years done a great deal of reading on cosmology.

efm: You're having a hard enough time defending your complete mess of a moral philosophy. Why you would also take on the added burden of trying to uphold completely indefensible and irrelevant pseudo-science is beyond me.

No, I showed you the third way on the dilemma.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Old earth Creation has pretty strong evidence

efm: 'Creation', in the 'supernatural' sense, is a vacuous non-concept with no mechanism or epistemology to speak of, and zero explanatory power. You may as well say 'magic'. There is no such thing as 'evidence' for an act of magic.

There have been many things in science that we have not discovered the mechanism for but that fact does not make something a non concept. And there is evidence for the supernatural, besides the BB theory, also Godels Incompleteness Theorem strongly points in that direction.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I stated earlier I dont deny speciation

efm: You stated that the cumulative effect of evolution has never been observed. Speciation is a cumulative effect of evolution, and has been observed. So you were wrong.

It is the cumulative effect of adaptation, not evolution. Many species within the same genus can still interbreed showing that most likely they are just a different race and not a different species. But genera shows a complete separation between organisms that has never been breached and never been observed.

efm: If you wish, you are welcome to try and identify a chemical barrier that would allow for divergence at the species level, but not at any other level. You will fail.

All mutations including beneficial ones result in a net loss of genetic information, thereby creating a limit or chemical barrier to mutation and limiting radical changes to maintenance within a family or genus and an inability to go beyond that.

efm: RE: The Cambrian explosion, for the benefit of anyone reading along,

Why “Sudden Appearance” Is Not as It Appears
“Darwin’s Dilemma”: Was the Cambrian Explosion Too Fast For Evolution?

Another easily refuted creationist canard.
.

Strawman. No one is saying there was nothing in the fossil record prior to the Cambrian. Just the wrong organisms to produce the phyla that we see in that short of time. Too many morphological changes would have to have taken place and there is not enough time for that to occur.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

I do understand that you have a hard time with abstractions. The answer that I gave does give an example. You'll need to understand that, like math, this is a concept that you'll need to "wrap your mind around."

That being said, to simplify the concept for you; a being, or an entity, or a force, or a ___ (whatever) that is truly objective. A being, or an entity, or a force, or a ___ (whatever) that does not require you, a subjective human, (or any other subjective being) to experience it, or interpret it, etc.

Respectfully,
T R-R

Ken, this appears to be another example of a deficiency in your writing/communication skills. When you ask for “type of answer” and a type of answer is given to you, the question has been answered.

• A being that is truly objective is an example of a type of answer.
• An entity that is truly objective is an example of a type answer.
• A force…
• Etc.

Therefore, I have “articulated an example of what I am looking for.” And, this implies that “there is such an answer that would satisfy.”


Perhaps you are looking to ask a different question. And, if so, I would likely oblige if the question was clear.


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken, this appears to be another example of a deficiency in your writing/communication skills. When you ask for “type of answer” and a type of answer is given to you, the question has been answered.

• A being that is truly objective is an example of a type of answer.
• An entity that is truly objective is an example of a type answer.
• A force…
• Etc.

Therefore, I have “articulated an example of what I am looking for.” And, this implies that “there is such an answer that would satisfy.”


Perhaps you are looking to ask a different question. And, if so, I would likely oblige if the question was clear.


Respectfully,

T R-R

Such a simple question; why aren't you getting this?
*Does a being that is "truly objective" exist? If so, give an example of one. If not, say so.
*Does an entity that is "truly objective" exists? If so, give an example of one; if not say so.
*Does a force......
C'mon you're supposed to be better than this!

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Such a simple question; why aren't you getting this?
*Does a being that is "truly objective" exist? If so, give an example of one. If not, say so.
*Does an entity that is "truly objective" exists? If so, give an example of one; if not say so.
*Does a force......
C'mon you're supposed to be better than this!

Ken, I appreciate the compliment as backhanded or disingenuous as it may be. Please note that however good or bad I may be, I still haven’t mastered the art of reading other’s minds.

Regarding what I believe to be your question, I offer the following.

To be true to what I demanded of you, this objective reference point cannot be subjected to my perceiving it.

Also to be true to what I demanded of you, this objective reference point cannot be subjected to any subjective beings perceptions, interpretations, etc. of it.

Everything that I demanded of you equally applies to me.

Yes, this can lead someone to come to the understanding that an objective reference point does not exist or if it exists, that it is not knowable by subjective beings because the subjective beings have to interpret it.

However, this is flawed “logic” and a flawed conclusion.

It is flawed logic, because there isn’t a reference point whereby the subjective being can know that he/she is understanding this “logic” correctly.

It is a flawed conclusion because, A.) the subjective being has no reference point whereby he/she can confirm that the “logic” is indeed logical. And, B.) because the “conclusion” is self-refuting.

It is a self-refuting conclusion because:
A.) If the conclusion is: “an objective reference point does not exist.”

The contradiction is that the subjective being is holding this position to be objectively true. And, a subjective being cannot hold a position to be objectively true unless he/she had an objective reference point. Therefore, the stated position “an objective reference point does not exist” is a statement by a subjective being which relies upon an objective reference point to exist for it to be true.

B.) if the conclusion is: “an objective reference point is unknowable by a subjective being.”

The contradiction is that the subjective being is making a statement of knowing. That is, the subjective being “knows” as objective truth that an objective reference point is not knowable. This is a statement by a subjective being that can be rephrased as, “I know the objective truth that I cannot know an objective reference point.” This too, relies upon an objective reference point for the subjective being to be able to reference for it to be a true statement.

Therefore, both the “logic” and conclusion that an objective reference point does not exists or if it did exist it is unknowable, are self-refuting statements. Or, illogical.

This indeed leaves the human in a brutal dilemma. All of his experiences tell him that he observes an objective world, that he can “reason,” that he indeed experiences other humans, etc. but, he has no basis to know if what he experiences is based in an objectively true world or if he/she is imagining it.

However, it is intellectually tenable for the subjective being to have knowledge of objective truths IF, that which is a truly objective reference point communicates to man (humans) that what man (humans) is experiencing equals man having knowledge of objective truths. (Not exhaustively knowing.)

This answer provides the only solution to the dilemma of a subjective being having an objective reference point and to having knowledge that his/her experiences are indeed based in “reality.”

I am not suggesting that this answers all forthcoming objections but, this is the only intellectually tenable answer to the dilemma of a subjective being knowing objective truths.

There is a lot more to this discussion but, I will leave this “as is” for now. You will likely want to debate this and I will happily engage but, I have pressing engagements to attend to the remainder of this weekend. I will likely be unable to respond to any of your replies until Monday.

Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken, I appreciate the compliment as backhanded or disingenuous as it may be. Please note that however good or bad I may be, I still haven’t mastered the art of reading other’s minds.

Regarding what I believe to be your question, I offer the following.

To be true to what I demanded of you, this objective reference point cannot be subjected to my perceiving it.

Also to be true to what I demanded of you, this objective reference point cannot be subjected to any subjective beings perceptions, interpretations, etc. of it.

Everything that I demanded of you equally applies to me.

Yes, this can lead someone to come to the understanding that an objective reference point does not exist or if it exists, that it is not knowable by subjective beings because the subjective beings have to interpret it.

However, this is flawed “logic” and a flawed conclusion.

It is flawed logic, because there isn’t a reference point whereby the subjective being can know that he/she is understanding this “logic” correctly.

It is a flawed conclusion because, A.) the subjective being has no reference point whereby he/she can confirm that the “logic” is indeed logical. And, B.) because the “conclusion” is self-refuting.

It is a self-refuting conclusion because:
A.) If the conclusion is: “an objective reference point does not exist.”

The contradiction is that the subjective being is holding this position to be objectively true. And, a subjective being cannot hold a position to be objectively true unless he/she had an objective reference point. Therefore, the stated position “an objective reference point does not exist” is a statement by a subjective being which relies upon an objective reference point to exist for it to be true.

B.) if the conclusion is: “an objective reference point is unknowable by a subjective being.”

The contradiction is that the subjective being is making a statement of knowing. That is, the subjective being “knows” as objective truth that an objective reference point is not knowable. This is a statement by a subjective being that can be rephrased as, “I know the objective truth that I cannot know an objective reference point.” This too, relies upon an objective reference point for the subjective being to be able to reference for it to be a true statement.

Therefore, both the “logic” and conclusion that an objective reference point does not exists or if it did exist it is unknowable, are self-refuting statements. Or, illogical.

This indeed leaves the human in a brutal dilemma. All of his experiences tell him that he observes an objective world, that he can “reason,” that he indeed experiences other humans, etc. but, he has no basis to know if what he experiences is based in an objectively true world or if he/she is imagining it.

However, it is intellectually tenable for the subjective being to have knowledge of objective truths IF, that which is a truly objective reference point communicates to man (humans) that what man (humans) is experiencing equals man having knowledge of objective truths. (Not exhaustively knowing.)

This answer provides the only solution to the dilemma of a subjective being having an objective reference point and to having knowledge that his/her experiences are indeed based in “reality.”

I am not suggesting that this answers all forthcoming objections but, this is the only intellectually tenable answer to the dilemma of a subjective being knowing objective truths.

There is a lot more to this discussion but, I will leave this “as is” for now. You will likely want to debate this and I will happily engage but, I have pressing engagements to attend to the remainder of this weekend. I will likely be unable to respond to any of your replies until Monday.

Respectfully,

T R-R

IOW there is no answer that you would find suitable.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not if it happens in the heat of the moment. It is considered self defense in most Western societies. Now if it happens over a lengthy period of time, of course, then it would be considered vigilantism and you would be right, you could be convicted of murder then.

ken; It will be considered self defense after the trial. Before the trial, while you are killing him, it would not yet be determined to be self defense.

If you have half a brain and have good morals, you know self defense while you are doing it.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, His written word is not flawed and it plainly speaks against what Hitler did. No one that has even a simple understanding of the bible would consider Hitler's claim as equal to Moses or Christ. Remember, the German establishment had abandoned belief in the Bible over 100 years before when they accepted Theological Liberalism and no longer believed in objective and absolute morality.

ken: The German establishment abandoned the Bible? Then why did they design their uniforms with religious inscriptions on them?

I didn't say that they abandoned religion, just orthodox Christianity.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You first. Provide evidence for your assertion that ancient languages are more 'complex'.

Why are many ancient languages so complicated compared to many modern languages?

efm: While you're at it, provide a relevant definition of 'complex'.

From Wikipedia: Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there is no reasonable higher instruction to define the various possible interactions.[1]

The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. The study of these complex linkages at various scales is the main goal of complex systems theory.

efm: Then you can get around to providing evidence of 'creation', with regard to language, and a coherent, workable mechanism of 'creation'.

There are many scientific theories where the mechanism has been unknown, and yet that does not disprove the theory. We dont know exactly how light can be a particle and a wave and yet it is. I already stated how Chomsky's evidence about a universal grammar is evidence for an original language.

efm: Never once in history has an established natural explanation of anything been overturned by a 'supernatural' explanation - it has always been the other way - but let's see if you can be the first to do so. Let's see if you know something that people like Noam Chomsky and his contemporaries somehow missed.

The origin of the universe. The first major scientific theory about the universe was the Steady State theory, where the universe was considered eternal and therefore not an effect so not needing a cause or creator, thereby ruling out the existence of the Christian God. Since the bible plainly teaches that the universe had a definite beginning. But then in the 1960's evidence for the Big Bang started coming in and eventually overturned the SS theory and proving that the universe was an effect and therefore needed a Cause/Creator. So yes natural explanation was overturned by a supernatural explanation. Of course, since most cosmologists dont want to be considered fundies, they did not want to admit that the BB points to a creator so they came up with the multiverse theory but even that unprovable theory does not disprove that the universe is an effect.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you have half a brain and have good morals, you know self defense while you are doing it.

There is no guarantee your killing will be labeled self defense after the trial and lawyers get done with ya

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

IOW there is no answer that you would find suitable.

Ken, alas, you did not disappoint. To borrow heavily from that iconic headline, your reply would be headlined as “Ken lays an egg.”

You have been waiting for this opportunity for so long and you whiffed. You take your best shot and wind up hitting yourself. Now, to quote you, that is priceless!


IOW there is no answer that you would find suitable.


This response is from either:
A.) a very ignorant person
B.) a person so consumed with revenge that he/she has lost some touch with reality (akin to road rage.)
C.) an ersatz atheist and clown who is having another “white whale” moment to save face in a debate the he/she has performed woefully in.

I think we both know what the answer to this is.


Regarding your post:


Ken, your reply is extremely poor inference. I wrote in my post (the very post you replied to) “this objective reference point cannot be subjected to my perceiving it” or, “interpreting it, etc.” This necessarily means that I acknowledge, accept, and expect that whatever answer may be, that it is not subjected to me. To infer that I demand that the answer is suitable to me does not follow logically since any answer that is suitable to me is therefore subjected to me. Your response is inane.

To quote you again, “care to try again?”


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why are many ancient languages so complicated compared to many modern languages?

Your evidence that ancient languages are necessarily more 'complex' is a link to a thread where anonymous web users are discussing the topic, some of whom agree with you, some of whom don't, some of whom say it's not a question that can be meaningfully answered because an objective measure of 'complexity' is difficult to establish, with regard to language.

Got anything else?

The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. The study of these complex linkages at various scales is the main goal of complex systems theory.

Ok. This might actually be workable. It doesn't get us much closer to an objective measurement of 'complexity', but it's something.

Now you can demonstrate that complexity is necessarily a hallmark of design.

There are many scientific theories where the mechanism has been unknown

Biological evolution theory is not one of those. Linguistic evolution theory is not one of those.

And meanwhile, 'creation' is not even a hypothesis.

The origin of the universe.

Nope. The Big Bang model replacing the Steady State model is a natural explanation replacing another natural explanation. The fact that you personally think there was a 'supernatural first cause' is not demonstrative of anything, and completely arbitrary. You could have chosen any scientific model and just plugged Yahweh into it, and claimed the same thing.

And your assigning motives to cosmologists is another typical creationist fairy tale. If you can't be bothered to read what they actually say about the subject, then don't bother at all.

Clearly you can't, because you are still harping on the canard of a 'definite beginning', about which the Big Bang model says nothing at all.

 

[xianghua]

Biological evolution theory is not one of those

actually no one know how a creature can evolve into other kind of creature or how many mutations it will take.