Do you wish there's a god?

[pocaracas]

Oh, boy...
Why do you keep treating "truth" as something that exists independently of a statement?

True statement are descriptions of reality. That which these statement refer exists independently of the statement itself. Statement that are contrary to reality are false statements. A statement is only true in so much as it an accurate description of reality.

LOL!

How nice of you to say the exact same thing 4 times.

You fail to distinguish false statement, from true statements, or subjective statements. What distinguishes a true statement from a false statement, is that true statements are accurate reflections of reality while false ones are not.

If I was addressing your repeated use of "truth", why should I need to bring up the opposite? I remember mentioning it a few posts ago, so I figured that would be enough.

I'm starting to think that you have an inherent difficulty in distinguishing reality from whatever is this thing you call "truth”’



And I’m starting to think your just some solipsist, or some sort factual relativist.

Perhaps.... I don't care much for labels. I think what I think the way I think.

I disagree...

Given that the moral aspect applies to the society, it is then seen as a unique set to a particular society, while some preferences may be different to different societies... which is clearly what we observe in human history.

Hey!!! You do get it!

Here you go contradicting yourself. Assuming the last indicated position is true. Because of our strong evolutionary underpinnings we are led to a false belief in an objective moral reality, a moral law out there. If we are led to believe this, then when we speak of morality we are speaking of it as objectively true, as based on a transcend moral law, etc.., not the way we speak of our feelings, or the current opinions of our society. 

Even if the objective observer recognizes that our beliefs our false, he still recognizes that the genre in which our perceptions and beliefs fall into resembles the way we refer to objective truths.

Resemble, but ultimately are not based on a feature of reality, just an emergent feature of a social species.

This shouldn’t be this hard for you to understand?

Your own thoughts here seem to be all over the place, searching for something that sticks, but lacks any consistency. You go back and forth between false beliefs that arose out of our evolutionary makeup, to the consensus agreements of societies.

That back and forth is in your mind. I keep telling you that there's a spectrum to moral rules and those we feel more strongly about align with those that would have arisen farther back in our evolutionary path, while those we see as less strong tend to pertain more to our recent societies.
There might be exceptions to this rule of thumb, but I can't imagine them, right now.



When I say torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, what I am not saying is that it’s wrong because society agrees it’s wrong, that is not what’s being expressed. I am asserting that which I see as objectively true, a perception of reality itself, and not the current social opinion, or my personal feelings. 



And you say my thoughts are all over the place. You still fail to grasp the simple fact harming another human being (be it a baby, be it an adult... be it for fun or not) is perceived as wrong because we evolved to consider that it is harmful to the group for any of its elements to be harmed.
Such harm is accepted when it comes from outside the group as a fact of life. But it is strongly discouraged from within the group. You see this in practice all over the animal kingdom, except where other imperatives take over. That is why I say that this sort of rule is embedded in your genes, much as it is embedded in other animals' genes.
It's an intuitive rule that has been selected for over millions of years in all social species.

Let’s assume it’s a mirage, an illusion. That even though it appears to me that moral reality exists, it’s really just false belief, that I’ve been led to hold as a result of strong evolutionary emotions and feelings. That which I perceive as real is not real, I’m just fooled by evolution into thinking so. 

But you fail to realize why any of us should believe that which we perceive as real here is not real. Rather than an illusion of moral reality, a moral reality exist. The only reason why I should not believe it exists, is based on presupposition that such a reality can’t exist, so I need to find some excuse to dismiss it, or claim  it’s not real. It’s dictated by your atheism, and you just fail to acknowledge it.

Dismiss evolutionary psychology all you want, but that doesn't change that it is a powerful mechanism that can easily account for your perception. Evolution doesn't care if your perception is accurate, only that it works for the purpose it was selected for... and that is to keep the group healthy and thriving.

I think you just want your perception to be 100% accurate because it helps in your narrative that there is an external moral rule giver, god. You've been conditioned to accept that this god exists and need some reasoning to go along with it, as pure belief isn't entirely satisfactory to you. So you follow WLC and other theist thinkers... Have you ever heard of Edward Feser?