Which Comes First?

[Ryft]

If it's too big of an assumption, then I shouldn't ask him that. But I'm not sure it is, since when I have brought it up he hasn't denied it.

Perhaps he hasn't denied it because he hasn't detected why it should be denied? I suspect that most people in your experience probably have little or no debate experience, which at least Solarwave has clearly indicated of himself; furthermore, they likely have not studied Theology Proper with very much depth. In other words, it is quite probable they are not able to detect entrapping language, such as your description of God being "truly 100% benevolent all-loving"―a description that leaves no room for God also being just, holy, wrathful, etc., which are truths central to the gospel that Christians also affirm. Some people don't see the trap until they've sprung it; others can see the trap and avoid it, or call people's attention to it so they can avoid it.

(That is not to say your trap was intentional. It probably wasn't. And you seemed to imply it wasn't. I think it is very likely that you don't possess a lot of theological literacy either and, therefore, were likewise unaware of the trap your description was setting―but no doubt pleased with the results it tends to produce.)

I'm asking questions―whatever questions I feel appropriate. I choose the questions, for I am the questioner. I am doing my best. So long as I don't commit the loaded question fallacy, I don't see what's wrong with asking questions. Questions are questions. If he doesn't like the question, he can answer me by clarifying that.

First, consider what I said above, about how some people may not notice entrapping language—including you, in forming your question.

Second, nobody suggested you can't ask whatever questions you fancy. That was a bit of an overreaction, Evie. But if you want to ask Solarwave questions about his beliefs, make sure your questions involve beliefs that Solarwave himself asserts—not beliefs someone else asserted (e.g., other Christians you've talked to), so that whatever argument the questioning leads to, for your sake, doesn't engage in faulty reasoning. I can warn about potential fallacies, or I can wait until you commit them and make a spectacle of it. Since I like you, I chose the former. And since Solarwave is my brother in Christ, I chose to help him.

Did I ever said that ethics don't exist?

Well, I said that your position asserts "that normative ethics do not even exist." But if we want to deal frankly with each other, then yes, your view asserts that ethics don't exist at all. There is no such thing as right or wrong; there are only various biochemical states of certain mammals or populations thereof. More to follow:

Subjective morality has a general consensus through culture, but it cannot be logically defended to be objective. You could not say that murder is objectively more immoral than eating an orange.

No, there is no such thing as subjective morality. Under the view you propose, morality actually doesn't exist at all; e.g., "Rape is wrong" is a meaningless statement because it ascribes an objective moral predicate to the subject of rape—which is impossible to do, for there are no objective moral predicates. There are only descriptive sociological predicates; i.e., the statement should be, "Some forms of sexual reproduction produce unique biochemical states in certain mammals or populations thereof." There is no such thing as morality (right and wrong), subjective or otherwise—a view which collapses under a host of counterfactuals, not least of which is the fact that people say "rape is wrong" because they clearly mean to say something about rape in and of itself, which your view fails to account for.

It just means that no one can claim absolute knowledge over what is or isn't moral, claiming to have an objective understanding over the matter ... I'm not trying to prove the non-existence of objective morals! I don't need to. I simply have no reason to believe they exist because I know of no evidence for them.

The issue is not about what is known or understood, but about what is true. You persistently draw ontological conclusions from epistemological arguments, which is a brutal category fallacy. You need to stop doing that (if you want to be rational). Whether or not P is true (ontology) is separate from whether or not you have any knowledge of P (epistemology). The earth revolved around the sun even though the Australopithecus afarensis had no knowledge of that, right? Epistemological arguments do not service ontological conclusions.

Why are you reversing the burden of proof?

I wasn't. You shouldered the burden of proof on your own by claiming that morality "only exists as an idea in the minds of people," which you thought could be supported by pointing out that "what one person believes to be good is not the same as what another views it to be." As per my response, the latter does not offer any support to the former; competing views about X do not prove that X has no objective reality—which left your truth claim standing naked.

You make the assumption that because I am arguing against objective morality I am somehow claiming that it absolutely doesn't exist! ... The fact I don't know of any reason to believe in objective morals doesn't mean I'm saying that it absolutely doesn't exist! ... Are you being disingenuous?

I like how you injected the word "absolutely" throughout your reply. At any rate, calling it an assumption does not make it so. And it was not an assumption made but a conclusion drawn, from such statements of yours as, "Morality does not exist objectively," a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that objective morality might exist. I have only your statements as written, Evie. If you were being sloppy, how am I to know?

[That morality has no objective reality is] a conclusion to be proved only if that claim was an absolutist one! I'm not claiming to know it absolutely doesn't exist! ... I never said I was being absolutist. Do you think I'm more likely to be absolutist and make such a fallacy than not? And why make such an assumption? Especially considering you seem to criticize me whenever I make one? ... Why do you assume that what I say implies that I am making such obviously pathetic arguments?

It is not an assumption! Stop being so bloody disingenuous, Evie! That sort of sophistry fails badly the test of rationality (which may be why it gets repped by certain atheists). You claimed, "Morality is subjective." A very clear statement. You claimed, "Good and evil don't actually exist in reality." You claimed, "Good and evil don't actually objectively exist." You claimed, "The concept of what is good and evil is man-made." These were very clear. You claimed, "Morality does not exist objectively." That seemed pretty fucking clear. Nothing ambiguous about your claims, Evie. I did not make any assumptions. It was my conclusion that you claim "morality does not exist objectively" because you bloody well said so!

Your claims are shouldering the burden of proof. If you dislike this, recant them. But don't think for a moment that you can make claims like that to Solarwave and myself, hoping no one notices, and then weasel your way out of them if someone does notice. It's pure sophistry and bad form.

You still have to provide evidence for your claim that morality is objective.

*hands you a Bible*

How does the fact that it is hugely common to believe rape is wrong mean that it is so objectively?

I said that the proposition expresses an objectively real morality. I did not say it creates one. Belief does not create truth; it enters into what is already true. And the proposition expresses an objectively real morality by virtue of the terms and structure employed: "rape is wrong" ascribes an objective moral predicate (intrinsic wrongness) to a specified subject (rape), such that it means rape in itself is wrong. It is a normative statement about rape, not a descriptive statement about the biochemical state of certain mammals or populations thereof. The proposition "rape is wrong" (P is X) expresses something very different from the proposition "some forms of sexual reproduction produce unique biochemical states in certain populations of mammals" (P causes Y in S).

[Rape is] wrong because we believe it is ...

Under your view? False. Rape is simply a form of sexual reproduction that produces a certain biochemical state in some mammals. Forms of sexual reproduction are neither right nor wrong, because biochemical states are neither right nor wrong. Ergo, rape is not wrong.

Under the Christian view? Also false. Rape is wrong because it violates God's prescriptive will.

Under your view, rape is not wrong. Under my view, it is. Which view makes sense of the statement "rape is wrong"?

If you can genuinely provide any evidence of objective morals, then I shall change my view.

I could not care less about changing your view. I'm interested in exploring what a God-forsaken unintelligible mess it is, which you are entirely free to hold onto.

We have your view, which explains the existence of competing views but cannot explain objective morality and therefore denies it; and we have my view, which likewise explains the existence of competing views but also explains objective morality.

Well let's hear your view, please!

That moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands.

I think [rape] is highly immoral.

No you don't. You think it is simply a form of sexual reproduction that produces a certain biochemical state in some mammals. You have no empirical evidence for anything beyond that. For you to state that "rape is highly immoral" is a blatant prevarication.