RE: Making the case for Islam.
June 5, 2016 at 10:58 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2016 at 11:09 pm by Mystic.)
@paulpablo
I think I've discussed the issue of value/praise/morality in a way in the past threads and over the years, that it is linked to God and that God it's ultimate source and basis.
Ultimately, I don't mind going through these discussions again.
The problem is that Atheists want to say that moral statements are neither true or false but rather they are simply what a person thinks. Praise statements are also neither true or false.
But logic dictates that all statements are either true or false. A statement like "chocolate tastes better then in vanilla" is not true, because it's not a universally objective. It is not true in all cases. There exists a case in which to a person, vanilla tastes better. The statement "vanilla tastes better then chocolate" is also false.
However is the same true of moral statements as far as humans go? Can we say it's wrong for a human to torture another human for simply pleasure? I hope we can say that much. Empathy doesn't necessarily have to be the basis, there is people with little to no empathy, yet they acknowledge moral facts.
That is not to say empathy is not important. But what I'm saying, are there moral facts. Are there even general moral facts. Even if they aren't universal, are there objective more facts regarding people. For example, what color I chose to like the most there perhaps is no should, but it's rather up to me. But is the same true of praise? Can I simply decide what is praiseworthy or what is not? Can society simply decide that for me as well?
If I can't simply decide, why can mutations that survived from evolution, decide that for me? What authority do they have to dictate me what I should do or what is better for me to do?
At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being. But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.
We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.
Now all this doesn't prove God because I haven't proved that we are justified in believing in value or praise. However, I feel like it's obvious and it's even in your every day language, that praise propositional facts exist.
Value propositional statements are often true or false, in that they apply generally to humans, even though a few exceptions can exist.
You guys acknowledge praise and it's objectivity all the time. But whenever God is proven by it, then it is attacked and said to be purely subjective.
I think I've discussed the issue of value/praise/morality in a way in the past threads and over the years, that it is linked to God and that God it's ultimate source and basis.
Ultimately, I don't mind going through these discussions again.
The problem is that Atheists want to say that moral statements are neither true or false but rather they are simply what a person thinks. Praise statements are also neither true or false.
But logic dictates that all statements are either true or false. A statement like "chocolate tastes better then in vanilla" is not true, because it's not a universally objective. It is not true in all cases. There exists a case in which to a person, vanilla tastes better. The statement "vanilla tastes better then chocolate" is also false.
However is the same true of moral statements as far as humans go? Can we say it's wrong for a human to torture another human for simply pleasure? I hope we can say that much. Empathy doesn't necessarily have to be the basis, there is people with little to no empathy, yet they acknowledge moral facts.
That is not to say empathy is not important. But what I'm saying, are there moral facts. Are there even general moral facts. Even if they aren't universal, are there objective more facts regarding people. For example, what color I chose to like the most there perhaps is no should, but it's rather up to me. But is the same true of praise? Can I simply decide what is praiseworthy or what is not? Can society simply decide that for me as well?
If I can't simply decide, why can mutations that survived from evolution, decide that for me? What authority do they have to dictate me what I should do or what is better for me to do?
At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being. But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.
We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.
Now all this doesn't prove God because I haven't proved that we are justified in believing in value or praise. However, I feel like it's obvious and it's even in your every day language, that praise propositional facts exist.
Value propositional statements are often true or false, in that they apply generally to humans, even though a few exceptions can exist.
You guys acknowledge praise and it's objectivity all the time. But whenever God is proven by it, then it is attacked and said to be purely subjective.
