Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

This one is reeeeeaaaallllllyyyy llllooonnnnggggg!!!!

Correct. I'll go further and say that this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in, evidenced by the observation that people have strong views pertaining to what they think is right, these views oftentimes contradict, and there being no standard measure for appeal except for the opinions of ourselves and others when evaluating the correctness of them.

Such not need be the case, however. A could acknowledge that B acted morally (per his standard) while personally disliking the consequence (being lied to).

We cannot forget that Subjects A and B are independent of one another.  Thus, according to this standard Subject A may not know anything about Subject B’s standard beyond the assumption that B shall engage only in activity which is considered moral.  To state otherwise is to say that Subject B would embark upon a course of action which they do not consider to be the rightful action, which while possible would seem to contradict the idea of self-interest where what is done in one’s own interest and is considered the rightful action.

As stated in an earlier post, we are unjustified in saying that something is subjective and then subsequently stating that the subjectivity of each Subject is so little that the Subject's subjectivities correspond with one another.

Furthermore, we must account for the fact that any given Subject shall act according to their whim even in the same situation.  This further constitutes a contradiction of subjective morality as the extent of the rule defined by subjective morality is the Subject shall act rightly in accordance with any whim at any given time to a given moral situation.  Which is to say, as stated above, the Subject always acts rightly even if they act sporadically or horribly.

Morality that is limited to a subjective determination cannot be determined objectively. Right. Objective morality implies that there is a set of values to which everyone is obliged in consideration of their moral quality being unaffected by any single individual's regard for them. Facts about the world, such as the correctness of Newton's law of universal gravitation, has such an objective quality---it doesn't matter if you agree with Newton or not when you jump from the roof of a skyscraper---whereas the values a person holds, shaping their perceived justification for slaying infidels, for example, have no necessary bearing on how others define value.

I do not quite understand this one as you seem to be all over.  First you are stating that facts about the world have an objective quality even though there is as you put it no objective source of these facts, but only subjective sources.  So I do not follow how there can be an objective quality that is not merely coincidence to which one might make a claim of objectivity.  (We covered this at length in previous posts regarding the need to appeal to realism to give subjectives universality and validity as a reflection of part, but not all of, an objective reality).

Then your infidel assertion seems to state those who torture, kill, rape, etcetera are acting morally (you must be if you are arguing a subjective morality) and has no necessary bearing on how others define value (of the actions I presume).  Which seems counter intuitive to me as the persons who are acted upon by said infidels either directly (victims) or indirectly (bystanders and family) would most assured have their evaluation of the action affected by both the act and morality/reason of actor.  (Think cops kill kid running towards them vs. cops kill kid running towards with knife in hand)

No. The determination of the right/wrongness depends on what Subject A values. If he values the Aristotelian conception of the good life his determination of right/wrongness will agree with others who share like-minded values, but differ from the pious priest who believes that appeasing the tribal deity and stoning the insolent child is the ultimate good which rational animals ought to pursue. Again, this is in fact represents the world we find ourselves in.

Ah…  I see.  By limiting the Subject to a schema of value you are establishing possible uniformity between Subjects; effectual creating a proxy objective morality.  Interesting, though I would say this would be contrary to the concept of subjective morality.  Since the Subject is not acting according to their own morality but rather according to a schema of morality which is not their own I assume you are contending they will follow the schema even regarding portions they do not like.  If you are not making such an argument than you are wasting time with the introduction of a schema argument and we are back to a subjective morality where each acts according to their whim at any given time in any given situation; a subjective morality that does not allow the Subject to form any rule of moral conduct.  

Furthermore, upon introduction of a schema you would not be justified in holding any given schema as being better than another in regards to subjective morality (you could make that distinction in regards to objective morality) where the Subject in question is not even willing to act according to their inherent determination of morality.  Whether they are following the schema outlined by Aristotle, whom lacks sufficient proof or evidence to exist (where is your picture of Aristotle in accordance with our picture proofs/evidence?), or are, “appeasing the tribal deity” they are acting according to a schema which is not their own and is not proven or evidenced.

It may also be said that all Subjects who subscribe to schema A may be considered Subject A and all Subjects that subscribe to schema B may be considered Subject B.  As all subset of particular Subject of either schema shall act in accordance with the schema as if a single Subject.  So by mean of introducing a schema you endeavor to deprive the Subjects of subjectivity such that (Subject A=A1=A2=A3=An).

Most people are not always logically consistent.

Oh I know it!!  There is a whole Atheist forum filled with them!!

Under subjective morality the particular Subject determines the quality of the action.  If we were to argue that the quality of action is determined by the actor we would have to say the act is always moral (no matter how horrible) as the actor considered the action of sufficient rightness to engage in said action.  

No, we wouldn't. We are still free to develop our own values and meanings, and to argue them based on what we conceive to be the most rational virtues based on the evidence of our perceptions... which is exactly what people who argue for objective morality do too.

Under a subjective morality you would.  You would not under an objective morality or objective morality by proxy which you endeavor to establish by means of a schema or the adoption of values and meanings beyond subjective whims or preferences.  In so doing you are moving the determinate of what is moral beyond the Subject to some rule the Subject must obey even if they subjectively do not think it is right or what they want. At which time they would no longer be following subjective morality.

Depends on what specifics you're referring to. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Newton, etc. made some brilliant observations. Their contributions to theology would not be included in that assessment for me.

Really?  Hmm…  Well that does not eliminate their brilliant contributions to metaphysics, ontology, and theology.
Guess your assessment does not define the reality

God is not inferred from "logic without experience" or "inference from evidence." So, I can allow legitimate knowledge of my surroundings to be ascertained from deduction or induction without conceding that there is any justification for an uber-powerful and wise species of being.

Umm.  God may be inferred both by synthetic apriori (done epistemologically by Plato in regards to the Forms) and synthetic aposteriori (done ontologically by Aristotle in regards to causality).  Kant even discusses both of these inferences of god in the Critique of Pure Reason.  

Is this from the CPR? My translation was the Meiklejohn one which I didn't much care for.

I am not sure what translation I have.  I will have to get back to you on that one.

My "metaphysical consciousness"? Is this different from my physical consciousness? (You know, that biological circuitry between the ears that Darwin beautifully demonstrated to have evolved from lower life forms over the span of millions of years, roughly seven decades after Kant's magnum opus).  

YES SIR!!  The reactionary meat between your ears constitutes physical consciousness (which I would not call it consciousness but you want to) and may be shown to react without teleological purpose to stimuli; where consciousness is held to be of greater metaphysical and teleological quality than simply reactionary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness)

(By the way, Darwin did not demonstrate this evolved over millions of years...No one has.)

Maybe my metaphysical consciousness can be rejected... but I think you'll have a hard time rejecting the consciousness that you would be required to use in rejecting consciousness.

Ha ha.  You cannot reject my imaginary friend without making one of your own.  I like it.  You cannot reject god without accepting the existence of your person who shall reject god (both of which lack sufficient proof/evidence).  This argument seems familiar…  

I think Einstein laid it out well:
"Nothing can be said concerning the manner in which the concepts are to be made and connected, and how we are to coordinate them to the experiences. In guiding us in the creation of such an order of sense experiences, success in the result is alone the determining factor. All that is necessary is the statement of a set of rules, since without such rules the acquisition of knowledge in the desired sense would be impossible. One may compare these rules with the rules of a game in which, while the rules themselves are arbitrary, it is their rigidity alone which makes the game possible.”

I love this quote as it is making my very point!

As stipulated earlier in this post.  The set of rules one adopts shall be either the objective reality or serve as a proxy for the objective reality to which the Subject must adhere even if not desired.  Then it may be further argued that any proxy of the objective reality shall reach perfection as it approaches the actual objective reality.

Otherwise you are contending the creation of nonsensical rules to play a game that goes nowhere.

I assume you know all of the prerequisite conditions that one would need in order to justify a statement regarding the probability of anything existing? Could you share them with us?

You asking just because or did your internet go out?

However, under that answer is the reality that in order to justify our own bias or desired position we need what is asserted regarding X, but not what is asserted regarding Y.  In this manner we set variable thresholds for each by which assertions of X are met by a lower standard than assertion for Y.  This is to say while I am ready to say my person exists and accept proof or evidence of it which is implicit and circumstantial I am not as ready to admit that God exists and will not accept proof or evidence of that which is implicit and circumstantial.

That would imply that it is equally necessary or fruitful to propose the existence of deity for the sake of advancing knowledge within any given framework... and in 4,000 years of history it's pretty obvious that isn't really the case. You can deny, for example, that other beings exist, because you feel that there is no standard of evidence that could convince you that everything is not an illusion... but then, besides the fact that it would make no difference to how you actually experience the world (jumping off that skyscraper might be a useful experiment, however), you'd probably find many more difficulties in advancing knowledge, which experience differentiates between abstract objects and those which seem to be "out there" in an objective world full of other conscious beings.

Actually history does support that idea.  In fact the primary institutions of scientific knowledge, learning, and progress in nearly every society would be the religious ones who were endeavoring to understand their god or god(s) better by understanding their creation.  Any anthropologist or historian can attest to this as religious organizations are one of the primary areas of research to understand societies.

I cannot deny the existence of numerous gods under the same threshold of proof that gives rise to a particular god.  However, I can amalgamate those gods into a single entity which may thereby be designated as God.

If you think the only two options available are solipsism and belief in supernatural beings, you might want to ask yourself where you could have gone so terribly awry.

I believe my argument was that any efforts to argue around the inherent subjective bias of pragmatism were futile.  Which I am confident in reiterating as pragmatism is a subcategory of idealism which contends the object and its practicality are determined by the Subject.  That leads back to my original post above that stated the purpose of the unattainable standard for god, with a different standard for everything else is because one does not want to believe in god rather than adopting a standard to support knowledge and letting determination follow that standard wherever it goes.

Which is why I do not endeavor to make such distinction.  I hold all knowledge to the same threshold of proof or evidence which is implicit circumstantial evidence.  I do not even require it to be empirical as knowledge may be synthetic apriori (inferred without experience commonly by logic) or synthetic aposteriori (inferred from experience), or analytic aprior (tautological).

Everything about the world in my experience of study and observation has thoroughly substantiated the view that actual knowledge requires a harmony of both.

Everything in your experience is synthetic aposteriori (inferred from experience) and not both   

I agree with the general statement that truth should agree with itself and where possible synthetic apriori and aposteriori should be in harmony, even with analytic apriori.  Though I admit that is not always possible.

I would not state that circumstantial implicit empirical proof is insufficient for positing something as probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended.  Not at all.  But I would have to tell you that God meets this threshold and thus may be posited as something probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended.

Contrarily, I would state that you're completely wrong. There is no measure for defining the probability of God as there is not a single point of observation or valid reasoning that suggests the existence of eternal, incorporeal, intelligences (assuming those are attributes that your version of deity or deities must possess).

I thought we had an agreement  But you went continuum fallacy quick?  

From circumstantial implicit empirical proof/evidence one may infer the existence of God such that it may be posited God is possible (which is to say probable even if slightly so) though vaguely defined or apprehended.  If possible; then slightly probable; if slightly probable then probable (though not necessarily likely).

To subsequent state that possibility cannot be an actuality simply because there is not a discreet point for determining the exact probability of the possibility to be an actuality is application of the continuum fallacy; akin to saying unless you can tell me exactly how many hairs a person must have on their head to be bald (or no longer bald) than you cannot infer that the removal of hairs from a person’s head who is not bald will make them bald.

Well, believers have been using variants of the same three arguments for God's existence since Plato... and I agree with the majority of philosophers who nowadays find them utterly dubious. You got something different?

Ha ha!  Atheist have been riding the “proof” pony since the beginning.  Got something new?

Then how about we endeavor to surpass our predecessors and resolve the arguments already posited?

I would recommend you not subscribe to argumentum ad numerum

Unfortunately, far too many people fail to understand critical methods and confuse the imaginations of ancient Greeks and Hebrews with realities discovered by the imaginations of illuminaries such as Darwin or Einstein. Remember, the value of a hypothesis consists in its ability to formulate models by which predictions can in principle be tested.

Oh I remember.  It is the reason why subjective morality is self-contradictory.  I have not forgotten