I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[LEDO]

What the fuck is "moral truth?" Is there "immoral truth."

The expression 'moral truth' doesn't refer to morally judging a 'truth'. It refers to moral truths as such, that is, objective epistemic foundations for moral standards. Immorality is specifically a negation of 'morality' which follows from the judgement that something does not live up to given moral standard. It already presupposes moral truth.

So why are we required to have moral standards? By "objective" I suppose you mean something that is real and examinable to the scientific standard.

[Jon Paul]

So why are we required to have moral standards?

We are not required to have moral standards unless we want to make moral judgements. The only way to avoid making moral judgements is to remain silent, as no human person can avoid making moral judgements.

For instance, you are unable to say that anything is worse than anything else for anyone but yourself, if you have no objective epistemic foundations for moral truth. You cannot even say that it's worse for someone else to take a knife and cut your genitals off than not to, since he is merely living up to his own subjective standards if there is no objective standards which apply to you both. And then you are unable to complain over it if that really happens.

Since you will end up predicating moral truths and making moral judgements no matter what, it follows that you are being inconsistent with your epistemic structure and making irrational judgements for which you have no grounds in objective reality.

By "objective" I suppose you mean something that is real and examinable to the scientific standard.

By objective, I mean that which transcends every single human mind. For every single human mind is subjective, and if there is nothing beyond subjective minds, there is no objective standard that in and of itself applies to all subjective minds for reaching objective truth.

[Edwardo Piet]

and I am wondering where the evidence is for any objective 'truth' as in absolute truth - that we can absolutely know

I've already shown you the error there lies in this question. You cannot provide objective epistemic foundations for the existence of objective epistemic foundations, without begging the question or presupposing it to exist. Either you commit the fallacy of begging the question, or you presuppose it to exist on grounds of proper basicality (that it is integral in your epistemic structure), but since that contradicts a non-monotheistic epistemic structure, you are then in fallacy again.

No, because you are making an assumption. I'm not asking for objective foundations for objective foundations. I'm asking for evidence that comes from people, i.e. scientists, the scientific consensus - or any other valid evidence. It's not absolute proof, it's evidence. It could be wrong...I'm asking for a very strong subjective consensus if you want me to put it like that - which is as close to 'objective' that we have! No one sees things exactly the same, but overall it could be said to be objective because the evidence is so strongly rooted in the science.

I'm not asking for objective evidence for objective truth. I'm asking for any valid evidence for objective truth. Anything that is trustworthy.

Science is falsifiable, it's 'objective' in the sense it's backed up by an extremely strong - scientific - consensus. It's 'subjective' in the sense it is based on what people have found (imperfect people - no one's perfect) and isn't absolutely proven beyond a doubt.

If anything is objective, science is. There's a difference between absolute and objective. I'm asking for 'objective' evidence as in strong unbiased evidence - if it's ever fair for the word 'objective' to be used correctly, it is correct to say science is objective (on the whole).

I am asking for evidence for absolute truth, not just objective. And evidence for objective, specifically morals - or any objective 'moral values'. Because as far as I know there isn't any.

There is already evidence of objective truth in the sense of science, because that's as close to objective as we have. Absolute on the other hand we - at least as of yet - have no evidence of (as far as I know, enlighten me).

Read the first paragraph in this post if you want to understand why that question completely talks in another direction than what I meant with "objective epistemic foundations" for moral truth.

Well are you saying there are any? Because my question is, where is the evidence for them?

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Science is falsifiable, it's 'objective' in the sense it's backed up by an extremely strong - scientific - consensus. It's 'subjective' in the sense it is based on what people have found (imperfect people - no one's perfect) and isn't absolutely proven beyond a doubt.

But this has nothing to do with the issue you are trying to circumvent. It's subjective what constitutes "subjective proof". Therefore, anyone can subjectively prove anything, but those are only abstractions of the mind, unless he has proper basicality for an objective epistemic foundation which transcends subjective abstractions.

If anything is objective, science is. There's a difference between absolute and objective. I'm asking for 'objective' evidence as in strong unbiased evidence - if it's ever fair for the word 'objective' to be used correctly, it is correct to say science is objective (on the whole).

You'd say that, because its a subjective judgement of yours that certain things are objective. But that is still subjective. Unless you can provide proper basicality in your epistemic structure for an objective epistemic foundation which transcends all minds (God).

[Edwardo Piet]

Science is demonstrable and it actually works. It has evidence. It's not equal to just anything else to put your own personal belief in. It's not equal to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! It has evidence, the FSM doesn't.

I'm not asking for objective evidence for objectivity to exist in the first place, that would of course be absurd. I'm asking for any valid evidence for; not just anything objective; but any absolute objective truth. And whether absolute or not - I am asking for objectivity specifically when it comes to objective 'moral' truths or anything similar.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Science is demonstrable and it actually works. It has evidence. It's not equal to just anything else to put your own personal belief in. It's not equal to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! It has evidence, the FSM doesn't.

There is evidence for the kind of God I am talking about as well - there is no evidence for such an absurd straw man as "flying spaghetti monster". But the problem is just, this has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I'm not asking for objective evidence for objectivity to exist in the first place, that would of course be absurd.

Now that you see this, you only need to understand the consequence of that fact.

I'm asking for any valid evidence for; not just anything objective; but any absolute objective truth.

If there is no objectivity involved in the "valid evidence", then it is subjectively defined what that "valid evidence" constitutes. And then you can provide valid subjective evidence, but since you define it yourself, it is not valid objectively, meaning that it doesn't apply outside of your mind. As to the rephrasing to "absolute objective truth", you still cannot provide objective evidence for such a thing, because it breaks down to semantics.

[Edwardo Piet]

All 'subjective' evidence isn't equal. Some is therefore 'objective' in that sense. It doesn't have to be absolute. When some 'subjective' point of view has more demonstrable evidence than other points (not all views are equal), it has more objectivity in that sense.

It doesn't have to be demonstrable to everyone for it to be objective. For instance: what about crazy people who are too insane to understand anything properly? Is it not objective if it can't be demonstrated to them? No - some people it just can't be because they won't accept it and/or don't understand it for whatever reason(s), etc.

Because there is a big difference between absolute and objective.

There is evidence for the kind of God I am talking about as well - there is no evidence for such an absurd straw man as "flying spaghetti monster". But the problem is just, this has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Well my original question was whether you believe you have evidence for your God or whether you just accept him on blind faith. I have yet to see a response to that (other than you mentioning something about metaphysics to Kyu perhaps) - untill now.

You claim there is evidence for your God right here ('your' as in the one you believe in). And my whole original question was whether you believed there was evidence for 'your' God or not. Now I see you do believe there is.

So my second question is: What evidence is there for the God you believe in according to you?

EvF

[Jon Paul]

All 'subjective' evidence isn't equal. Some is therefore 'objective' in that sense.

On what grounds do you say that "all subjective evidence isn't equal"? Subjective grounds. In other words, you are subjectively judging that all subjective evidence isn't subjectively equal. It's simply pointless, because you don't understand the argument. It's not a battle over what has more "evidence", but over the very nature and grounds of all evidence. I will have to quote myself.

What do you mean there is evidence for reality? Do you mean with "evidence", objective epistemic foundations for the belief that reality exists? If so, you are begging the question of an objective standard which transcends subjectivity, for epistemic foundations, and that is simply not consistent with a non-monotheistic epistemic structure, which provides no objective standard for logical truth, except abstractions of the brain chemistry, and then you are contradicting your own epistemic structure.

If not, then you are merely talking of subjective abstractions, which is not something which provides an objective epistemic foundation for the belief that reality exists - only subjective, in which case you cannot adscribe to it any truth that transcends your own mind. In either case, you are unable to propose anything objectively about reality as an atheist, but only subjectively which means literally, for yourself, and in and of your own mind.

Because there is a big difference between absolute and objective.

Objective is the antonym of subjective. Now we are simply arguing over semantics.

It doesn't have to be absolute. When some 'subjective' point of view has more demonstrable evidence than other points (not all views are equal), it has more objectivity in that sense.

It does not have more objectivity because it fulfills the subjective requirements which you yourselves posite for demonstration. It is still merely subjectively defined what is evidence and what is not and what is demonstrated and what is not, unless an objective standard is already presupposed.

It doesn't have to be demonstrable to everyone for it to be objective. For instance: what about crazy people who are too insane to understand anything properly? Is it not objective if it can't be demonstrated to them?

It is not objective at all if it doesnt transcend subjective minds.

Well my original question was whether you believe you have evidence for your God or whether you just accept him on blind faith. I have yet to see a response to that (other than you mentioning something about metaphysics to Kyu perhaps) - untill now.

Yes, I have. You simply didn't read my post on page 2 then. The last post on page 2 - read it. Here I quote:

You seem to have answered my question for me in response to Kyu though! Seems you believe there is evidence in metaphysics! In which case my second question would be: What evidence; and how is it evidence?

You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

[..]

[Darwinian]

You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

I'll ask then, what evidence have you got?

[Jon Paul]

You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

I'll ask then, what evidence have you got?

I was quoting my own post in this thread. I am not going to repeat everything in the post here, just go back and read what I've already said.