(January 13, 2016 at 4:45 pm)Kingpin Wrote:(January 13, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The same way your government qualifies with it's 100$ bill.......
Which is why I made the distinction between the argument of extrinsic vs intrinsic. Others were correct to point out that my analogy was not a good one because the money's value is extrinsic.
A theist argues that humanity is imbued with intrinsic worth by their creator despite the values we ourselves place on humanity. I really don't see how from a purely naturalistic sense, humanity has any value or worth aside from that which it places on itself. But this curtails into moral arguments and one of the arguments I use in morality discussions with those that hold a naturalistic view. If worth/value is 100% subjective then no one has any grounds to condemn the moral actions of others without asserting their own moral authority since each is acting within their own subjective moral framework.
It's not only ground, when I was Atheist for a week, hoping that somehow my cursed arguments against God were illogical (thankfully they were), I realized you cannot arbitrary value things without belief in some objective value.
Even when things are purely subjective, you believe there is some reality to your taste, that your taste although your own, is meaningful to you and ought to be so.
You don't just arbitrarily assign whatever value you want. In Rhythm words, "I have standards", everyone does, but why? Why do we have standards? Standards are there to estimate as closely as possible the what we ought to value.
Some people have bad taste, it's true. Good taste is something that be acquired. Taste itself is not entirely chaotically subjective. Even in all things, in all creations, is a praise by which they glorify God. They glorify God by a praise to him, but we don't understand their praise, because we are so use the type we have.
Somethings are closer to God's taste, then others. God has the ultimate taste, he is the source of taste.
