(December 8, 2017 at 6:26 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: You just said you agreed with that premise Wallym in this thread and other threads, so perhaps, clarify your viewpoint and stick to one.
I informally agree that if you want objective morality, it seems like you'd need some sort of God type. And that if there's a God type of the mildly defined nature you guys would like, it seems like they'd maybe be able to pull off objective morality.
But these are not facts. They're hypothetical musings.
I tend not to push back against theists on hypothetical musings because it's just a thought exercise. Like how tall are unicorns or how many teeth do dragons have. We could say "well, dragons eat sheep, so they probably need such and such number of teeth minimum." But it's not really a fact dragons eat sheep. Or have teeth. Or anything. Because Dragons aren't real so they have no traits at all.
But if we were to pretend there were dragons or objective morality, we can guess about things like that. It's just not factual because they don't exist.
--
The confusion, I think, is that my musings on things don't necessarily mean I think they are facts that can be used as premises in logical proofs. Does that clear up why I have some seemingly contradictory positions?