(May 28, 2012 at 12:18 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: I am assuming you don't believe in objective morality, correct?

I realize that you do you, and have made a positive claim regarding that matter, and yet have not offered evidence to support said claim.

I can't speak for genkaus (he's perfectly capable of doing so for himself), but the only claim I make regarding objective morality is that I see no reason to suppose that it exists.

You apparently feel otherwise. Feel feel to demonstrate it.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:27 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 12:18 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: I am assuming you don't believe in objective morality, correct?

I realize that you do you, and have made a positive claim regarding that matter, and yet have not offered evidence to support said claim.

I can't speak for genkaus (he's perfectly capable of doing so for himself), but the only claim I make regarding objective morality is that I see no reason to suppose that it exists.

You apparently feel otherwise. Feel feel to demonstrate it.

Cold-blooded murder is wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of life.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:31 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 12:27 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I realize that you do you, and have made a positive claim regarding that matter, and yet have not offered evidence to support said claim.

I can't speak for genkaus (he's perfectly capable of doing so for himself), but the only claim I make regarding objective morality is that I see no reason to suppose that it exists.

You apparently feel otherwise. Feel feel to demonstrate it.

Cold-blooded murder is wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of life.

I happen to share that opinion, but recognize it as such.

Care to prove the objectivity of said opinion?

(May 28, 2012 at 12:39 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 12:31 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: Cold-blooded murder is wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of life.

I happen to share that opinion, but recognize it as such.

Care to prove the objectivity of said opinion?

Common sense and conscience that overrides opinion.

"Common sense and conscience" - and with those words, you blow away the concept of objective morality. Good shot!

(May 28, 2012 at 12:45 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 12:39 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I happen to share that opinion, but recognize it as such.

Care to prove the objectivity of said opinion?

Common sense and conscience that overrides opinion.

Common sense is a majority opinion. Majorities have believed other races inferior to them before. What do we do when common sense dictates that one race is inferior to another? Also, as already noted, appealing to opinions of the majority doesn't prove opinions are correct.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:27 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 12:18 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: I am assuming you don't believe in objective morality, correct?

I realize that you do you, and have made a positive claim regarding that matter, and yet have not offered evidence to support said claim.

I can't speak for genkaus (he's perfectly capable of doing so for himself), but the only claim I make regarding objective morality is that I see no reason to suppose that it exists.

You apparently feel otherwise. Feel feel to demonstrate it.

Relativism, cultural relativism, emotivism, utilitarianism, etc. These philosophical theories don't provide any authority of what a person should or shouldn't do morally. One person or a group of people do not have authority over each other to say what is right or wrong. There has to be a transcending authority above humanity to give a moral law. If there is such a thing as evil, then there is such a thing as good. If there is good and evil then there has to be a moral law to differentiate the difference between the two. If there is a moral law then there has to be a moral law giver. Personal opinion can't have authority for a moral code, but the transcendent moral law giver does. Our Lord who has revealed himself through the Bible has made us in his image and written that moral code on our hearts.

Quote:Yet again, failing to realize what I am talking about.

What you fail to grasp is that you don't know what you're talking about.

(May 27, 2012 at 10:20 pm)genkaus Wrote: Wrong. What you are trying to do here is shoehorn god as an axiomatic concept whereas it is a completely derivative concept. The most basic belief about reality can only be 1) Reality exists and 2) Reality does not exist.

Upon accepting the first, we can go ahead and ask other questions which are based on that answer, such as "whether what we perceive is reality" or "does something other than reality (god) also exists".

While using god as an axiomatic and self-evident concept, while simultaneously failing to justify its inclusion in such, clearly puts you in the wrong here.

So lets start there. I like that. How do you know that what you perceive is reality???
I know because God has made me in his image and given me a brain that can reason logically like he does and senses that can be trusted.

(May 28, 2012 at 1:09 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Yet again, failing to realize what I am talking about.

What you fail to grasp is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Is that your subjective view, or are you just happy to see me?