Which Comes First?

[ecolox]

My latest response is in "Reasons for God". A response here would be redundant.

[theVOID]

My latest response is in "Reasons for God". A response here would be redundant.

You should at least provide a link.

[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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

I'll try to keep this in mind. Thanks for your consideration.

Second, nobody suggested you can't ask whatever questions you fancy. That was a bit of an overreaction, Evie.

Well I thought that you were implying that it's best I didn't ask some questions, but now I think - due to what you have said to me above - that it is perhaps best if I am perhaps a bit more careful in my forming them.

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'll bear that in mind.

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.

Why thank you, and it's nice that you like me. I like you too: A theist with admirable qualities and I think an admirable theist on the whole too

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 assert
s that ethics don't exist at all.

But I believe ethics are a cultural thing and morals are more of an evolved thing. you see...

There is no such thing as right or wrong; there are only various biochemical states of certain mammals or populations thereof.

Well that's sort of what I mean, but it seems as though you are perhaps trying to demean it - or think it is already demeaned, rather - by phrasing it that way.

In other words as you say the differing biochemical states, I am talking about how each individual has what he believes to be wrong, and that on the whole there is a general cultural consensus on the matter, a very vague one mind, because we are all individuals.

This fact, the fact that each individual has what he/she believes to be wrong, is obvious: What about your belief that morals are objective though? I know of no evidence for that you see... it seems to me that the burden of proof is therefore on you, and not me. What I am saying is beyond obvious and exists whether there's an objective morality or not. Because even if there are objective morals, there's still the fact that we each have our own views on the matter, which is what i mean by subjective morality: The fact we all have our own personal beliefs and feelings on the matter, of what is right and wrong: What is moral and immoral.

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.

What do you mean by "no such thing as subjective morality"? All I mean is the fact that we all have views on morals, and if that doesn't count as morality at all, not even subjective morality, then that's just your own personal and, subjective, views on morality speaking... until there's evidence of objective morality then you telling me that doesn't count does nothing... because that's only in your own subjective view. How can you say that doesn't count? Subjective morality is just the fact that views differ, it is the reverse to objective morality which is that objective morals actually exist in reality somehow, or as clear values that just are moral or immoral. And without evidence for this, without evidence for objective morality, how are they not a subjective matter? Subjective morality just means the fact that us, the subjects, have different views on the matter.

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).

As I said, I'm not doing that. I am not claiming that my claims are absolute. When I say "X is true", you can take that as a belief or an absolutist statement, and when I'm coming back telling you I'm not being absolutist, why do you persist in saying that i am and saying that I fallacious. Of course it's a fallacy to draw ontological conclusions from epistemological ones. That I believe there is evidence for something and that is rational, and that I believe it, does not imply that it is absolutely true/ is actually existent in reality.

When I say "X is true", you can take that to mean "I know X is true" or "I believe/think X is true". My assertions and claims are statements of beliefs... regardless of whether I believe they have evidence backing them or not, I am not explicitly asserting that they are absolutist and that I know it.

Since zero of my claims are absolutist, I'd have to constantly state "I think" and "I believe" throughout repeated lines throughout my posts. I don't think it should automatically be assumed that the statement "X is true" = "I know X is true", it can also just as easily mean "I believe X is true", and for me it always means the latter. I am well aware that the former is irrational.

Whether or not P is true (ontology) is separate from whether or not you have any knowledge of P (epistemology).

Of course.

The earth revolved around the sun even though the Australopithecus afarensis had no knowledge of that, right?

Right.

Epistemological arguments do not service ontological conclusions.

I know that (translation: "I believe I almost certainly know that, so please don't ask me to back up this absolutist claim for it is not absolutist").

Why are you reversing the burden of proof?

[...] competing views about X do not prove that X has no objective reality—which left your truth claim standing naked.

My "claim" is merely my belief that people, of course, have different views on the matter of morality. What some people believe to be "moral", or "immoral" differs. Yes, this does not prove that objective morality doesn't exist. I was not suggesting that it did. I don' t need to prove that objective morality doesn't exist, to attempt to do so anyway would commit the negative proof fallacy, you can't prove a negative. All I need to do is point out that I don't know of any evidence for objective morality, so without that, in my view, I'm just left with the fact that there's at least "probably" only the fact that everyone has different subjective views on the matter... which is all I mean by "subjective morality".

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.

So, when you, say right here, that it is "a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that morality might exist". Should I believe that you are claiming to know that or that you merely are claiming to believe it due to your own reasoning? Because if I am to assume the former like you do of me, then I am to now ask how you know that this is necessarily a case. And I am also to point out that your claim is illogical because someone could make a statement, when that statement was just a Belief supported by what they believed to be their own reasoning and evidence, and not an absolutist statement.

As were my claims, they were not absolutist ones. I just didn't say "I believe X" or "I think X", and since you haven't done the same now, am I to draw the conclusion, by that same logic, that you wouldn't make the statement that I 'wouldn't make the statement if there was a possibly to concede' and accept that I might be wrong, if there was any possibility that you would concede and accept that you might be wrong in your statement?

I have only your statements as written, Evie. If you were being sloppy, how am I to know?

(Do you mean know as in absolutely know or relatively know?)

Common sense I say. I am not at all saying you don't have it, I'm just saying that when I claim "X is true" or "X is false", that doesn't imply that I am claiming to absolutely know those claims, they could just as easily be statements of belief due to my own reasoning.

If you are ever to state something, am I to assume that you are being absolutist and say "Oh, but how do you know that?"? That is not an assumption? I think it is. A statement can be absolutist or not absolutist.

If I have to assert specifically that "I believe X is true"/"I think X is true" all the time. It makes those words kind of redundant, for everything I am saying I am stating as a belief anyway.

I also then tend to run into statements by others saying "We know it's your belief/opinion, you don't have to keep asserting that it is all the time", see what I mean? Can't please everyone. Some people assume that "X is true" is a mere belief/opinion, others assume that it is an absolutist claim, others make no assumptions.

It is not an assumption! Stop being so bloody disingenuous, Evie!

Do you "Believe" that I am being disingenuous or, since you didn't mention that you believe it, are you making an absolutist statement, should I assume that then, by your above logic?

And if so, how do you "know" that I'm 'being disingenuous'.

I'm not being disingenuous.

That sort of sophistry fails badly the test of rationality[...]

I could say this absolutist statement that you are making is irrational. Because you can't know what's in my mind and know that I am being disingenuous or not, you're not a mind reader.

Wait, you didn't claim that you absolutely "knew" that I was being disingenuous did you? No, but you didn't say you "Believed"/"Thought" I was either, or that it was your "opinion", so since it was just a statement, then by your logic above, as I said, am I to reason that it's an absolutist statement?

Or should I do the fair thing and not make assumptions? I don't assume that you are being absolutist, nor do I assume that it's merely your "belief", I can instead - if I felt like it anyway - question you on the matter without making an assumption either way.

[...] (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.

These claims are my own beliefs of course. They weren't absolutist statements. I'm guessing it's just like how your statement up above how you said

"Morality does not exist objectively," a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that objective morality might exist.

(my emphasis) Since you didn't claim that as a belief or opinion, should I assume that you are being absolutist about that too? And also, should I assume the same about your accusation that I'm 'being bloody disingenuous'?

You claimed, "Morality does not exist objectively." That seemed pretty fucking clear.

Clear that I claimed it, but not clear that I was absolutist about it. I am not claiming to know what I claim. I am arguing evidentially. I am not making absolutist arguments.

Like I said "X is true" can mean "I know X is true", but it can also mean "I believe X is true"/"

Nothing ambiguous about your claims, Evie.

See above. That's your assumption that "X is true"= "I know X is true". And I could make the same assumption about you, but I don't.

I did not make any assumptions. It was my conclusion that you claim "morality does not exist objectively" because you bloody well said so!

I said so because that's an expression of what I believe. It is not an absolutist claim and hence I am not drawing logically fallacious ontological conclusions from epistemological ones.

Your claims are shouldering the burden of proof.

You believe that objective morality exists and I know no evidence for that. So I could say the same to you. Hopefully it is clear now that my position does not require the burden of proof until you have provided evidence for your view, because I am not claiming to know that objective morality doesn't exist. It is merely that my assertion that it doesn't exist is an expression of my belief that it doesn't, or rather my lack of belief that it does. IOW: I know of no evidence for objective morals whatsoever, so I of course don't believe in them. I consider them to be ridiculously unrealistic.

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.

Are you claiming to absolutely know that it's 'pure sophistry and bad form' on my part if I clarify that my statements weren't absolutist ones? Am I to assume that you are absolutely claiming that - since you didn't state that it was your belief? And so does this mean that it is also 'pure sophistry and bad form' if you "weasel your way out" of this absolutist claim of yours(!!), this absolutist accusation(!), by clarifying afterwards that it is a belief of yours and not an absolutist claim?

Apparently the Bible is evidence of objective morality. Oh dear, I guess you're not going to quote the magic page or pages that proves it (or at least evidences it) then?

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.

Once again, I'm not being absolutist. I'm saying that it is "wrong" relative to whoever believes it is wrong. We each have our own subjective views on morality, however much they are shared, and however much they differ. That's all I mean by subjective morality.

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

And that applies to those who believe that that is objective, not those who don't. So until it is proven that that is objective, the fact that Christians believe that is, I think, more likely to just be their own subjective views, than for objective morality to actually exist without any evidence for it.

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

If by under my view you mean rape is not objectively wrong, then yes. But I do believe rape is wrong in the sense that I would rather it didn't ever happen. And I think it is a horrible thing to do to someone.

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.

I will hold onto it so long as I believe that the evidence is on my side.

P.S: When you say that my view is a "God-forsaken unintelligible mess", is that an absolutist statement or an opinion?

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

What are the crux of his commands, in your view?

And if you'd rather answer elsewhere feel free to do so. I am interested in hearing more about what you precisely believe.

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.

When I say I think it is wrong, I mean that I think it would be better for people if there was no raping in the world.

EvF

[theVOID]

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

*hands you a Bible*

What sort of fucking argument is that? He asked for EVIDENCE Arcanus, you just provided a book of claims made by the primitive, uneducated, superstitious residents of bronze-age Palestine!

I have lost all respect for you

[Ryft]

Well that's sort of what I mean, but it seems as though you are perhaps trying to demean it—or think it is already demeaned, rather—by phrasing it that way.

Demean it? You cannot be serious. There is no demeaning here at all. I am portraying your view with frank and honest accuracy, for that is exactly what your view is asserting (further underscored by your reductionist view of the mind). No need to be coy, Evie. All this noise about 'know' versus 'believe' is distracting obfuscation, for it does not matter whether you claim to know your position or merely believe it, because epistemology is not the issue here. Morality is. Namely, the very meaning of moral terms themselves, on your view. For example, you claim that everyone has what he believes to be wrong, which should immediately raise the question, "What does Evie mean by the term 'wrong' here?" And if we are thinking critically when evaluating your view, we will indeed raise such questions and examine what the logical conclusion turns out to be—which you should do, too, if you are a critical thinker. So let's do so.

When you say that "rape is wrong," on your view that means rape (Y) produces an emotional response (Q) in Evie (S). First, on your view an emotional response is a biochemical state organized in the limbic system of the mammalian brain. Second, on the evolutionary view, rape exists within a species as a form of sexual reproduction that evolved by selective forces as an advantageous behavioral adaptation. Therefore, when Evie says that rape is wrong, it turns out that he actually means, "Some forms of sexual reproduction produce a certain biochemical state in some mammals." That is not demeaning. It is unabashed accuracy, stated frankly and honestly. (If your intuitive sense tells you that it's demeaning, my friend, perhaps you should give that some attention.)

So given your current view, it is blatant prevarication for you to say that "rape is wrong" and utterly dishonest, for such a statement by its very structure and meaning is ascribing an objective moral predicate to the subject rape (Y is X; says something moral about rape), when the truth is that your view does not account for anything of the sort. On your view, "wrong" is a neurobiological term describing a biochemical state of a mammalian brain, while the term "is" predicates that state of the subject "rape"—which is complete illogical nonsense because rape is not a mammalian brain. The truth is that on your view a descriptive biochemical state is predicated of the subject Evie (Y causes Q in S; says something empirical about Evie), a very different thing altogether. Think about it. "Y is X" says something utterly and completely different from "Y causes Q in S."

Which is why I said that on your view morality does not exist at all—subjectively or otherwise. It simply does not exist. Period. Morality is prescriptive, dealing with what "ought" (morally correct) and what "ought not" (morally wrong). But your view is descriptive, dealing with what "is" (empirically correct) and "is not" (empirically wrong). Descriptive and prescriptive are categorically different things; by accounting for what is the case, descriptive, one has not thereby accounted for what ought to be the case, prescriptive. Your view is a classic demonstration of the Naturalistic Fallacy—defining an ought from an is (q.v. George Moore)—which would be incapable of resolving Hume's Dilemma at any rate—deriving an ought from an is (q.v. David Hume). At best, your view when left alone fails to account for morality, moral terms, and moral statements. That makes it flawed. At worse, your view when critically examined actually denies that morality exists or that moral terms and statements are meaningful. That makes it false. In both cases, your view has no explanation for the existence of morality and the intelligibility of moral terms and statements, and is therefore a failure.

Given these carefully explained problems, here is a question for you: When a theory fails in several different ways to explain real phenomena, do scientists ignore the problems and maintain the theory anyway, or do they take the problems seriously and revise or replace the theory accordingly?

What about your belief that morals are objective, though? I know of no evidence for that, you see.

There is a difference between morals (ethics) and morality (metaethics). I have expressed a belief in the objective nature of the latter, morality or metaethics. I have not said morals are objective.

I hold that morality and moral statements are objective, the evidence for which can be found (i) in the very definition of the term 'objective' and (ii) the inherent meaning of moral statements. First, 'objective' means independent of the claimant; if I say P is objectively true, what I mean is that the truth value of P has nothing to do with me, that the facts and implications of my existence have no bearing on its truth. Second, "rape is wrong" ascribes an objective moral predicate to the subject rape by the very structure and meaning of the statement and its terms: the clause "rape is" asserts something true about rape in itself, by the very meaning of the term "is" and its function in predicating a moral value to rape (wrongness). In other words, the statement "rape is wrong" asserts nothing about me, it asserts something about rape; i.e., objective moral statement. I may believe the statement or reject it, but that is a seperate matter from the statement itself and what it asserts.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, and not me.

Then you are badly confused. The burden of proof is on both of us, for we are both making claims. My claims hold that moral statements are intelligible and correspond to reality, while your claims hold that they are unintelligible and don't correspond to reality (when we examine your claims closely). We must both meet the burden of proof that each of our claims shoulder.

What I mean by subjective morality [is that] we all have our own personal beliefs and feelings on the matter, of what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral.

The issue is not about the fact that we all have views. Of course we do. The issue is about the truth value of the views we have, whether this view or that view corresponds to reality. Everyone has their own personal beliefs; some successfully correspond to and explain reality, while others fail to do so—such as yours in this discussion.

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).

As I said, I'm not doing that. I am not claiming that my claims are absolute. When I say "X is true," you can take that as a belief or an absolutist statement, but when I'm coming back telling you I'm not being absolutist, why do you persist in saying that I am and saying that I'm fallacious?

You completely missed the point. This has utterly nothing to do with whether your statements are absolutist or not. The fallacy is that you are forming conclusions about whether or not morality exists (ontology) from reasoning about what is believed or known thereof (epistemology). Drawing ontological conclusions from epistemological arguments is a brutal category fallacy.

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.

So when you say right here that it is "a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that morality might exist," should I believe that you are claiming to know that, or that you merely are claiming to believe it due to your own reasoning? Because if I am to assume the former, like you do of me, then I am to now ask how you know that this is necessarily a case. And I am also to point out that your claim is illogical because someone could make a statement, when that statement was just a belief supported by what they believed to be their own reasoning and evidence, and not an absolutist statement.

As were my claims. They were not absolutist ones; I just didn't say, "I believe X" or "I think X." And since you haven't done the same now, am I to draw the conclusion, by that same logic, that you wouldn't make the statement that I 'wouldn't make the statement if there was a possibly to concede'? And accept that I might be wrong, if there was any possibility that you would concede and accept that you might be wrong in your statement?

...wtf?

Dude, a person who concedes that objective morality might exist would not say, "[I believe] morality does not exist objectively." Why? Because the latter contradicts the former!

It is not an assumption! Stop being so bloody disingenuous, Evie!

I'm not being disingenuous.

Yes, you are. When I present a conclusion drawn from a careful argument (i.e., I take the time to show you how I reached it), it is disingenuous for you to call that an assumption. Reasoning validly from premises to their logical end is an argument whose product is a conclusion, not an assumption.

"X is true" can mean "I know X is true" but it can also mean "I believe X is true."

Incorrect. "X is true" is an ontological statement about reality, while "I believe/know X is true" is an epistemological statement about you. If what you mean is the latter but you say the former, then at best you conflate important categories and confuse the discussion. In the worst case, doing so on purpose is the intellectual dishonesty of prevarication.

Hopefully it is clear now that my position does not require the burden of proof until you have provided evidence for yours, because I am not claiming to know that objective morality doesn't exist. It is merely my assertion that it doesn't exist, which is an expression of my belief that it doesn't (or rather my lack of belief that it does).

First, understand that the burden of proof is not somehow restricted to empirical evidence (although such can be called into service if categorically relevant). The burden of proof has a far wider scope than that, for it is nothing more than the imperative to demonstrate the reasoning by which you reached some conclusion, which may not necessarily be an empirical one. For example, your conclusion that an argument is invalid is proven with logical analysis, or your conclusion that a formula is incorrect is proven with mathematical equations, and so forth. In other words, just because someone asks you to meet your burden of proof, that does not necessarily mean they want you to produce strong physical evidence. They are simply interested in your conclusion and want to see how it was reached.

Second, whether or not your statements shoulder the burden of proof is determined by the very nature of your statements in and of themselves. If they assert something about the real world—whether absolutely or relatively, whether known or believed—then they shoulder the burden of proof. Plain and simple. Classifying your assertions under mere belief does not immunize them from the burden of proof, when we recognize what it means to believe a thing. Even if what you're asserting is a belief, Evie, it shoulders the burden of proof because it asserts something about the real world—by definition! Belief is defined as intellectual assent that some proposition P is true, and true is defined as corresponding to reality. So to assert a belief that P (e.g., "I believe morality does not exist objectively") is to assert that you agree P is true, that P says something about the real world. Whether or not it actually is true isn't relevant here. Important, but not relevant on this point. You believe it is true, which is a conclusion you reached through some reasoning process. When someone indicates your burden of proof, they are simply asking that you demonstrate the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion, the belief that P.

Third, your reasoning above therefore commits the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You said that your position, expressed as a belief, does not require the burden of proof until I have provided evidence for mine. Since belief is the intellectual assent that some proposition is true (in this case, "Morality does not exist objectively"), you are asserting that it is true until it is proven false. And remember, you expressed that same proposition in several different ways in a few different posts, to others and myself, so I am not making this up. If you are uncomfortable with either the burden of proof or this fallacy, I would encourage you to stop claiming that morality does not exist objectively. Every time you make a truth claim—i.e., "I believe that P" (intellectual assent that it is true)—a person might indicate your burden of proof.

Apparently the Bible is evidence of objective morality. Oh dear. I guess you're not going to quote the magic page or pages that proves it (or at least evidences it) then?

Your gratuitous invective notwithstanding, the Bible does not have any magic pages. But if you want a scriptural study on what the Bible says about the nature of morality, I would certainly be willing.

I'm saying that [rape] is "wrong" relative to whoever believes it is wrong. We each have our own subjective views on morality, however much they are shared, and however much they differ.

First, "rape is wrong" is a proposition that is either true or false (the Law of Excluded Middle). Second, true is defined as corresponding to reality; i.e., reality makes propositions true. Unless you are a Solipsist, beliefs do not determine reality; i.e., beliefs do not make propositions true. Therefore, whether or not P is true has nothing to do with what this or that person believes about it.

So, is P true or false in itself? If I believe it is true, does that make it true? If so, then Smith's believing it is not true makes it not true. Consequently, P is true (because my beliefs made it so) and not true (because Smith's beliefs made it so) at the same time and in the same respect (in itself)—a logical contradiction. This is why relativism does not work.

When you say that my view is a "God-forsaken unintelligible mess," is that an absolutist statement or an opinion?

I have no idea what you mean by "absolutist." However, that your view is a God-forsaken unintelligible mess is a fact which this discussion continues to demonstrate. I wish that you would abandon it for something that doesn't collapse so easily under scrutiny.

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

What are the crux of his commands, in your view? (And if you'd rather answer elsewhere, feel free to do so. I am interested in hearing more about what you precisely believe.)

The most crucial commands of God are to repent of your sins and believe in Christ as both Lord and Savior. The reason why these are "the crux of his commands" is because the only way to avoid condemnation is to keep all of God's commands entirely and perfectly—which everyone refuses to do. So the crux of his commands are found in those which provide a means of right standing before God, the final judge of all the earth.