(March 12, 2016 at 11:12 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:(March 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.
Still that is pretty different isn't it? You can demonstrate in multiple ways why 2+2=4. But in the morality example the only thing that makes the human's appraisal of what is moral in correct is that it doesn't agree with God. Going to your parent/child parallel, what makes an action right isn't the fact that your parent says don't (or do) do it. What makes it right can only be amplified meaningful by laying out the consequences good and bad of the action. In other words, what makes the right action right isn't a matter of authority.
You are correct. As the video explains, you can't "demonstrate" morality, just as you can't demonstrate God. They both are in the realm of the supernatural, and there is no proof for either of them. But that is what we believe.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh