(June 5, 2016 at 10:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.My problem with discussions is people usually don't look at the whole argument or the central argument, but look at the phrases leading up to it, and respond to that.
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.
I think I have a lot patience in that I repeat the same things over and over again, in different ways, but people still don't address the crux of the argument.
Ok you believe morals is what humans think and have nothing to do with God because you have no evidence for God. What does this have to do with the argument I showed?
