My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, you're asking a theist that lol. If God didn't exist I don't think anything would exist at all.

World's fastest proof of god:

P - If God didn't exist, nothing would exist.
P - The world exists.

C - God exists.

That wasn't meant to be proof of God. I've said repeatedly all over this forum that I do not believe there is proof of God that can be demonstrated.

[Chas]

How did you determine that these things require anything to maintain their existence? All you've done thus far is assert that.

In the same way I know they can't come from nothing without cause, that is being non-existence and then existing with no cause, I know they are in need of cause to exist.

No, you do not know that, you only believe that.  And you provide no reason for anyone else to believe that.

[Chas]

I don't think so.  Wouldn't he just disagree?  He dissents from God's opinion/rule/call-it-what-you-will.  Given free will his morality merely does not coincide with God's.  He is only 'wrong' if he was in fact attempting to predict God's rule.  Perhaps he wasn't?

Yes, he would disagree, but he would be incorrect. It's like if I disagreed that 2+2=4. I could disagree all day, but I'd still be wrong. What we believe is that the person who thinks rape is good is wrong because we believe rape is objectively immoral. That's what objectively immoral means.

No, that is most certainly not what 'objectively moral' means.  You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word 'objectively'.

[Catholic_Lady]

No. It is true that objectively immoral acts are very bad, but what it means specifically is that the act is immoral, period. It is not a matter of opinion. If someone says "oh I think rape is good", that person would be incorrect. It's different from your opinion of what the best tasting food is, for example, where there is no correct or incorrect answer, but is merely just a matter of personal opinion and taste.

How are objective moral values derived, in your view? And how do you know that they are, in fact, objective? What objective observations lead you to that conclusion?

Well we believe they come from God. We believe God established what is good and what is evil. To act in a way that is good is moral, to act in a way that is evil is immoral. 

How do I know? Same way I "know" God exists, if you will. It's what I believe and it makes sense to me.

[Catholic_Lady]

World's fastest proof of god:

P - If God didn't exist, nothing would exist.
P - The world exists.

C - God exists.

You forgot the pages of textwall to make the simplest and stupidest argument ever given look like it has some substance.

It wasn't meant to be an argument, just an honest answer to a question someone here asked me personally.

It's really annoying that some of you keep assuming I'm trying to debate or convince or prove something. I'm not. I'm merely explaining my stance by answering your questions. Don't agree with me? Great. I don't care. I'm not here to change minds. I'm here to have discussions with people who aren't ass holes.

[Catholic_Lady]

No, you're still all on ignore (well, 4 people are I think). But for now, I feel ok clicking on "show post" to address whatever new issues came up.

Oh, okay.  CL, I have written a personal apology to you that I would very much like to deliver to you privately.  I'm hoping you will consider taking me off ignore just long enough so that I could send it.  But if not, I understand.  Sorry this appeal is public.

Fair enough, I will take you off.

[Mystic]

World's fastest proof of god:

P - If God didn't exist, nothing would exist.
P - The world exists.

C - God exists.

That wasn't meant to be proof of God. I've said repeatedly all over this forum that I do not believe there is proof of God that can be demonstrated.

 I have to agree with this. In the sense, every argument, makes use of some premises that can be disputed. And even those premises have arguments, they will have premises that can be disputed.  

The thing is I believe in the Ultimate Value thread, I showed a clear reminder. 

At the end, all we can do is remind of signs of God or his light or our link to him. Arguments all make use of at least something linked to him.

The link can always be denied. People can deny their own selves as well. Their perpetual identity. The link of their actions to who they and their value. 

They can deny so many things at the end of it all. I've even seen some people say yes things can come out of nothing, that is existence can appear out of non-existence. 

We saw LadyCamus deny that in all possible worlds it has to be the case that it's impossible that it can be good for the Creator to torture an innocent being forever for no reason, no crime. We had no Atheist in that thread I discussed with her support this premise. 

Yes you can deny everything that points to God. You can deny the very nature of who you are. You can deny everything you know about reality if you want.


There is no knock out argument in that sense. There is plenty of good arguments and reasons to believe in God if one wants to know sincerely.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok. Never said there was.

You utterly missed the point.

You have a belief based on nothing.  Why?

It's not based on nothing.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, he would disagree, but he would be incorrect. It's like if I disagreed that 2+2=4. I could disagree all day, but I'd still be wrong. What we believe is that the person who thinks rape is good is wrong because we believe rape is objectively immoral. That's what objectively immoral means.

No, that is most certainly not what 'objectively moral' means.  You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word 'objectively'.

In the Catholic faith, that is exactly what objective morals mean. I am presenting my position, which is the Catholic position.

[bennyboy]

/thread


CL, you have spent over 100 pages crowing that morality is objective, and double talking, and never giving any reasons, explaining any examples, or supporting your idea with any rationale or evidence.

What exactly do you want to know?

I want to know what you think morality is, and why you think it's objective.  We're 100 pages in, and you've not really bothered (so far as I can see) to explain either of those things-- things which I would have expected to be done on the 1st page of any thread, ideally in the OP.

Here, let me give you an example.  I think morality is a communal agreement about which behaviors are or aren't desirable.  They represent a balance between our instincts (for example the instinct to protect loved ones) and the evolution of various cultural ideas (for example, religious ideas about God).  I believe this because some morals (like the protection of children) are consistent across most cultures, while others (like views on homosexuality) are radically different.  I'd argue this is because most people have instincts for/about children, but we do not have instincts about sexual alignment. My evidence for this is that North American culture just a few decades ago was massively against homosexuality, but now is much less so-- in such a short time, the instincts of people could not have changed (that takes thousands or millions of years), so it is only ideas which have changed.

See?  I have ideas, can explain my reasons for holding them, and can even provide some evidence supporting my reasons. 


Okay, now it's your turn. . . *begins holding breath*