Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I said proof is not necessary. (IOW whatever arbitrary amount of evidence Ken decides is enough)
I said reason! Not logic or syllogisms. Try addressing what I actually said for once.
I don't think anyone can go through life not calling anything right or wrong. For one it would be avoiding all responsibility. If a loved one was making some decision and was choosing an obviously wrong and perhaps dangerous act or path there is a responsibility and duty of care to tell them they are doing the wrong thing or making the wrong decision. But even not speaking out against wrong is almost implicitly condoning it. What do they say about silence when wrong is being committed. It is what allows the wrong to go on.
So what is "objective" about the morality then? Let's take a specific example, homosexuality. Let's take two groups, one whose "lived moral experience" says homosexuality is immoral, another whose "lived moral experience" says it is not. How do you tell which moral stance is objective?
No, you defined "assume" as "without proof". "Proof" is the standard you set for getting beyond an assumption. Are you really this lost, or are you just trying to straw man again?
I am addressing the definition you chose to cite. Reason is logic. That's why you cited the definition for "logic" when we were talking about what "reason" is. You didn't cite the definition for "reason" so no, you didn't just "say reason". Syllogisms are just a tool used by formal logic, so they're part and parcel of your choice in words.
I didn't say I wouldn't speak out against anything, I said I would do it without using the words "right" and "wrong". I even gave you an example that immoral people aren't "wrong", they're awful, terrible, despicable, etc.
I said to assume does not require proof; not that it is defined as without proof.
Reason and logic are not the same.
We are talking about a moral act, not a person who does the moral act. It is the moral act that is wrong not the person. If you call an act terrible, awful, and despicable then you're saying it is wrong.
This is a more complex subject and I am not sure it is the right place to discuss it here. But basically according to God's laws the act of homosexuality is wrong and that is the measure. Anyone who discriminates against a homosexual is wrong and this can be seen in how people don't think that treating another human hatefully is the right thing to do. Anyone who claims that it is good to discriminate against someone is being unreasonable and hateful which is against how people know intuitively that we should be loving and kind to others.
But a person's ideas about what "God's laws" are is entirely subjective. If there is no objective way of determining which moral stance on homosexuality is objectively true then there is no way of demonstrating that there is an objective moral position.
But lots of people think your god(s) laws are stupid.
Naughty, naughty fibs. Here's you defining "assume". You even bolded the "without proof" part!
So yeah, you defined "assume" to be "without proof". Ready to admit you're talking out of your tuchus yet?
No? They aren't? Are you sure? Because when you were talking about reason you cited the definition for logic. See?
Now why in the world would you tell me that I can see in the definition of "logic" that "reason" is not about dealing with facts? You must recognize that in all the pertinent ways, they're the same. Logic is just more formal, that's all.
Actually the definition is “to take for granted or without proof. So my point stands.
Obviously I gave you the wrong definition. Again; logic is different than reason.
Your point stands that you didn't state "assume" means "without proof"? Because I handily demonstrated that you are fibbing. Are you doubling down? Heck, I even noted at the beginning that you snipped that "or" out of the definition to dishonestly make a point that "without proof" was a necessary ingredient of the definition. If you want to start agreeing with what I've been saying and abandon your previous statements, then by all means, go ahead. But trying to claim that you made a point by changing your position to be in line with mine is pretty pathetic.
Yep, those line up. Like I said, logic is just more formal. Let's take a look, shall we?
Let me ask you a question here. Is your understanding of morality based on what you believe is right and wrong by faith? Or do you know what's right and wrong by fact.
Often my responses are made while at work on a break so I have a limited amount of time to make my point. When this happens I don’t always have time to proof-read my response thus small mistakes can result when this happens.
You’re using the wrong definition of reason. You are using it as a verb rather than a noun. My example of a person coming in from the rain with a wet umbrella, those are nouns. As a noun, reason is described as a cause, justification, or explanation of a belief, action, or act.
Nope. This is all false too. Can't you be honest? We were talking about whether "reasonable assumption" is a contradiction in terms. I said that an assumption has no evidence, you said that an assumption has no proof, and that's how you claim it can still be reasonable. That is why you cited the definition of "assume" and changed it to look like "without proof" was the focus. I'm no genius, but my memory is too good for you to try and play make-believe with me. Stop making me go back and quote you to show that you said what I claimed you said. It's well established by now that you are not a reliable source for your own words. You defined "assume" as without proof, and then claimed that you never did so. You cited the definition for "logic" and then claimed you never said anything about logic.
I don't believe you "accidentally" ommitted a word in the middle of that sentence. It would have taken a lot more trouble to do that than to simply cut and paste the whole thing. The fact that you bolded "without proof" is what really cinches it. Why did you bold that part? How was that a typo? If it was a simple mistake, and you never meant for "without proof" to be a necessary part of the definition, then you would have agreed with me when I said so in the posts that followed.
Not really, you're using definitions out of context. The context is apparent because to use it the way you are now you need "a" in front of it. There is a difference between saying "I used reason to reach this conclusion" and "I have a reason for this conclusion". In the latter, there's no indication that you're being reasonable at all. The definitions you posted for "unreasonable" state that you "used reason" not that you "have a reason". "Reason" in the correct context, if you insist on the noun definition, is thus: "the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument." That's from your link by the way. And "first principles" refers directly to logic. You'd have to know what those first principles are to understand that though.
"My friend had an umbrella", "The umbrella was wet", "My friend was wet". Those are facts. Your attempt to demonstrate reasoning without facts failed.
It doesn't stand, you used facts; it fails, and by extension, you've failed again.
You made the counterclaim "reason does not always deal with facts" and haven't supported it with an outside source, just an example of you using facts to reason with. Which, by the way, is the third time you've done exactly what I predicted you would do. I must be psychic! Or I'm just correct about how all this works, your choice, buddy!
Post # 2114, in response to your claim that evidence should be required to convince yourself of something, I said:
No it is perfectly reasonable to assume a wet person coming from outside, is wet due to the rain.
The existence of my friend, and the existence of the umbrella is a fact as well; that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the conclusion; to use reason to conclude it was the result of rain is not based on fact.
The same argument can be made for objective morality but that doesn't mean there is no one true God. That is why I posted the video about how the Christian God can be argued as the one true God. If there are objective moral laws there cannot be 2 or 3 different sets competing with each other. There can only be one.
Like I said some morals may be harder to determine than others. But that doesn't mean there is a position that can be determined. Sometimes we may not fully understand why the moral law is what it is but we still respect that as law. The same as the legal law. So it comes down to faith. Remember I only have to show that there is one objective moral to show there is objective morality. As moral acts don't operate in isolation it follows that the one objective moral is part of a system of moral values. So every situation would involve an objective moral.
Yes, that is something we were discussing. I said a "reasonable assumption" is a contradiction of terms because you would have evidence if you were using reason, and you argued it isn't because an assumption just means "without proof". I told you that you had evidence for your car starting, just not proof, and you stopped responding to that line of argument.
Nothing in what you quoted there says anything about that. Remember what I said about make-believe? We're not playing that game. The phrase "I have a reason" does not mean that you are "using reason". That's what I said. Do you disagree with that, or do you only disagree with fictitious things?
I didn't say it was "based on fact", I said it "deals in facts". Stop making things up. But okay, we'll throw out the facts. We don't know he had an umbrella, we don't know that the umbrella was wet, and we don't know that he was wet. Why are we concluding that it was raining?
