Search results

Which is exactly why I never use prophecy and supposed fulfillments as "proof of God" and/or "proof of Biblical reliability." But .... do you care to return to the moral-argument debate ? :)

If I am obfuscating, please accept my apology. But I don't know where you are referring me to go back and re-read. Can you do with with post #'s , which appear in the upper right of each post. And then direct me to which paragraph. I'll go back and look and see if I was obfuscating . So...

I don't doubt that if you rape, you will likely get caught and go to jail , for example. But now we're back to ontology vs epistemology again. We can both look at a speed limit sign, and agree that the speed limit is 35 mph. Right ? And then everything you're saying above, in your quote...

Point duly noted. Thank you for clarifying. Sure. I "get" that you are NOT saying that "morality has no basis" (lest how could anyone ever call something right or wrong ??). Sure. I get it. OF COURSE I didn't think your system "had no basis for morality". And here is your "basis" ...

Which homo sapiens ? Which country ? What era ? What if they have contradicting moral codes? Would you have adjudicating tie-breaker ? If so, then you have just admitted to an objective standard that is OUTSIDE of and ABOVE each set(s) of "homo sapiens" Why don't you just take my bait and...

Ok then, if it's "no particular human(s), and is just "humanity", then what do you do when you have two conflicting/contradicting moral codes, in two different countries ? How do you adjudicate ? Since they too are "humanity". Why don't you just take my bait, and say that the answer is...

If it's "just the way it is", then presto: You've just been converted to saying that morals are based on objective fixed points. Glad to have you on our side of aisle now T.O.T. Henceforth you will no longer say that morals are relative/subjective to society, collective "we", culture...

Which ones ? Which set ? What country ? What era/time ? And you still haven't taken my bait from the other post where I offered to you the notion that it requires the consensus of the "entire world" and over "all the eons" (if it were conceivably possible to poll the entire world over...

This is a strange bizarre question to me. Are we needing to go back to first base and define "objective" vs "subjective" all over again ?? I thought we were past that. If someone "should do something", that is either subjective (eg.: just your "preference " that they should do it) versus...

For pete's sake, what is the difference between "social contract" and "we" and "humanity" ? I'm using them interchangeably. For pete's sake, you KNOW what I/we are talking about, so why are you trying to divert the heat off of yourself by playing with semantics ? You know full well what...

T.O.T., notice your use of the words "have to" (in bold above) . And the use of the word "forced". And the moral implications of the word "share" and "cooperation" and "respecting", etc..... Do you mean all that in a subjective/relative sense ? Or in an objective sense ? :/ Tsk tsk ...

truth-OT, I do not see Biblical prophecy as very convincing to lend itself to the debate of the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible. Others might find it convincing place to start a discussion, but I don't find that it has much convincing power to an agnostic or atheist. NOT that...

Philip, you are a breath of fresh air. You brilliantly show the inevitable contradictions that the moral relativist faces . No sooner does he pound the table insisting that morals are subjectively relative, then in the next breath he lists off a list of things that people "ought to do"...

T.O.T. What is this perpetual "we" that you keep referring to ? And it's a fair question that you , perhaps, didn't ever use the word "vote". I was using that for sake-of-space. Because what the heck else does "we" refer to ? But you're right , that it need not be a "vote", per se. It...

I love ya like a brother T.O.T. So here's a homework task for you : Go through your above quote, and find all the objective moral "oughts" that you list. Ie.: things that we "should" and "ought" to do. [hint, I put a bunch of them in bold] And then ask yourself : Did you mean those...

And what do you do if a group of people or entire nation or continent, feel that it is "generally desirable" to kill you and take your stuff ? Woah woah woah, there you go again T.O.T. : Smuggling various objective moralities in through the back door again ! Don't you see it ?? Notice your...

Oh I want SSEEoooo hard to reply to this. But I can't. It would divulge my next hand of cards to T.O.T. . Assuming he holds to -the-whole world, over all-the-Eons, as being the collective "we" that he speaks of. Versus looking at an outlier fluke state, or nation, or era. So I...

Hey there Matt, thanx for chiming in. Truth-OT has been a very good sport. Very fascinating discussion. As for your first paragraph here : Lots to un-pack. And one thing I think all of us need to be aware of (when it comes to subjective vs objective) is to differentiate minor nuances...

Score one for Truth-OT. I was wondering when you'd chime in with this. The notion (If I'm understanding you correctly) goes like this : It is wrong for the theist to point to individual societies , like Nazi Germany, or Iran gay-bashing, or Jim crow laws, etc.... as examples of collective...

I don't mean to be stubborn. I truly do want to give you my thoughts on how we humans ground morality. But put yourself in my shoes : This would be a little like two chefs discussing how to make meatloaf. One of the chefs brings 2 pounds of dogsh#t . The other chef objects and says...