Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#511
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not necessarily "pretend".  Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR TERRITORY

Then when others do the same against you, what is wrong with that? Dictators or oligarchs are quite often very dangerous people for they have control of power and they want more.

Let's make up a scenario. When you are subverted by President Xi and his system of governance what is wrong with that? Could that happen? It could depend on what the leader is willing to do in his quest for world dominance for China and the resolve of those who stand against him. China is building its military. It wants to be #1 economically as well as militarily. If you are not Chinese, could your rights be suppressed in such a scenario? All you have to do is look at China now for the likely answer. Look at Hong Kong.  Look at the Chineses government's acquisition of cyber-technology and its crackdown of dissidents. Meanwhile, the Intell Committee is laser-focused on Trump. The crazy thing, IMO, is there are some who want to vote Democrat and turn the USA into a social state where "big government" thinks for you and where due process is denied. What injustice, but that is from a Christian standpoint where there is a necessary fixed, universal moral best.  
#512
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not necessarily "pretend".  Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
Human instinct and intellectual consensus (social contract).
Intellectual consensus. Consider yourself lucky that you live in the USA.
#513
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.
Shouldn't? 'Shouldn't' implies a moral ought.
The counter-statement "we should have to force everyone" strongly suggests an intellectual deficit.

If you can't convince people to follow your social framework, it would seem prudent to modify your social framework.
Laws do that. As a Christian, I would argue some laws are unjust. 

All you have is a moral preference.
Based on an understanding of basic human instinct.
Again, what makes your instincts right especially from an evolutionary framework?

Why, if moral values are made up and I don't like yours?
Then we should figure out if either party has perhaps misunderstood the other.

That is if you can get the other party to agree. 

And if you don't want to comply with my moral preference and I have the ability I am going to force you because of the other alternative in a world devoid of moral absolutes.
I disagree that your ability to force compliance constitutes "moral absolutes".
I'm speaking of a world devoid of those absolutes. 

The other alternative in such a world could be that we follow yours and I don't want to.

Moral absolutes mean there is a right, a fixed value that should be followed. If I put myself in your worldview position, which I do with these scenarios, my incentive to follow something I do not like is only made possible because of a few reasons. One, I don't think it is important enough to fight for my viewpoint. Two, I do not have the strength or means to do so. Three, I am willing to compromise. You could supply other reasons but why would I support something I disagreed with unless I was forced to do so?

You're merely promoting MOBSTER ETHICS.
You or me or someone else, that is my choice. 
#514
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.
Tell that to the Dem's. President Trump is presumed guilt with no legal rights. They are trying to force a conviction on him without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They are making it up. They are "pretending" their case is just.  
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. 
It is an investigation of possible or evident criminal activities. But the person charged with such a crime is usually allowed due process. Not in the case of Trump. How unjust is that? And that they chose the Intell Committee to conduct the hearings, selected all the witnesses, would not bring in the one witness who started the process and hid the original questioning behind closed doors until they could find some hearsay and presumptions that they liked.

The Intell Committee has far more important matters to deal with that are being ignored, but what do the Dems have to show for their year in office? What laws have they passed? What about the USMCA? What have the Dems done that is good for the country? They want to undo a duly elected president and ignore 63 million votes.    


The house "verdict" is 100% inconsequential.
No, I disagree but hopefully, we will find out. My fear is that if the Democrats win back power their wrongful actions will be swept under the proverbial rug. I see this as a race to see who will expose who first. I feel that the Dems are making up fictitious charges to obscure the crimes they are guilty of.  

Now I say all this not because I am an American citizen but because as goes America so goes the rest of the world. I watch from the outside as an interested spectator. I realize the importance of it because I understand that your country is important to a somewhat freer world. The alternatives do not look promising. And I also see socialism and leftist ideology as the ruination of a country. 


The president is not a victim.
We will see. What has he done that is impeachable??? I would like you on record so I can remind you later. 

I think liberals and those supporting the Dems will be surprised when the truth comes out in the wash. But my fear is they will still vote Democrat. They won't care that they were lied to for four years and the media was complicit in one of the biggest propaganda schemes and coverups in your countries history. And all those promises of free everything only comes with a price tag of what - some are pushing for as much as 94 trillion dollars. Good luck with that! 

If you cared one tenth as much about the presumed guilt of the average person spending time in jail awaiting trial, I might agree with you on that.
Innocent people paying for a frameup is a disgusting injustice. 
#515
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.
It does come from an ancient number of books all stating this God exists.
Argumentum ad populum.
Unless those are the facts (I.e., they do come from 66 different ancient manuscripts and that is what those manuscripts state). 

My opinion gains significance if God exists and I correctly interpret His revelation.
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.
Sure it matters. Then it matters whether you believe in this God or not. Then it matters in that God provides the necessary best that morality is based upon. Then it matters whether or not you believe in the one means God has given that reconciles us to Him. And a thousand more things.  

And make sense of morals without God. 
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms.  So do humans.  And we've had them for a very long time. 
They do not debate about moral values but humans do. 

Even before Abraham invented Israel. [LINK]
I will look at the link later tonight. 
#516
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
It's universal principles include:
It's subjective principles include:
That is from a position that God does not exist. The Christian God's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.

Love God.
Unverifiable Qualia.  And thought police.
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.

Do not worship idols. 
How is this "universal" when people around the world worship any number of things?
The Christian answer - only God is worthy of worship. 

You shall not murder.
This is hardly novel.  And doesn't do much to explain the different definitions of "murder" around the world.
The Bible makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Murder is the intentional taking of innocent life. There are situations where innocent people get harmed like in just wars. 

You shall not lie.
I think this prohibition existed before Moses.
Yes, it did, but Moses codified it as commanded by God. 

You shall not commit adultery.
Also not new and also not universal (Droit du seigneur).
Again, the Christian God put the principle into effect in the beginning. The original intent of marriage was with one man and one woman. It was symbolic of our covenant relationship with God, thus sacred. 

You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions. 
Here come the thought police.
Are you saying it is good to desire something that belongs to someone else? It shows a lack of contentment. It can lead to more serious issues, like stealing. 

You shall not steal.
Unoriginal.
True, most every society and most people understand the principle and why it is wrong. Again, it boils down to do unto others as you would have them do to you along with other principles of love, like protection, rejoicing in truth, and never wishing others harm.


Honour your father and mother.  
If they deserve it.  Clearly not "universal".
Truly it is better that your parents are godly and loving. 
#517
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

And make sense of morals without God. 
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms.  So do humans.  And we've had them for a very long time. 

Even before Abraham invented Israel. [LINK]

The question is whether these principles existed before the Hammurabi Code and the biblical logic is of course. 
#518
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer
Not if the source referenced is an objective, universally true, and unchanging moral value.
Is it morally right to kill a woman for fucking?
#519
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
The original intent of marriage was with one man and one woman
When? 200kyrs ago or 2million yrs ago or 2weeks ago?


#520
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The question is whether these principles existed before the Hammurabi Code and the biblical logic is of course. 
If that's true, and it seems very likely that mammalian social instincts did exist before Abraham, then why the heck do we need an old book?

And don't get me wrong, I believe there is some basic, fundamental, coherent, scalable, code of human morality, based on primary AXIOMS.

But those primary AXIOMS don't seem to be written anywhere in your old book.
#521
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions. 
Here come the thought police.
Are you saying it is good to desire something that belongs to someone else? It shows a lack of contentment. It can lead to more serious issues, like stealing. 
The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.

It is impossible to police people's thoughts, and furthermore even if it was possible, it would be a gross violation of personal privacy.

A MUCH MORE PRACTICAL LAW would be to say, "Thou shalt not accumulate wealth in excess of your basic needs".

This actually squares with a lot of things Jesus taught about the dangers of material wealth. [LINK]
#522
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Love God.
Unverifiable Qualia.  And thought police.
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.
Error-slave can only make errors.
#523
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It's subjective principles include:
That is from a position that God does not exist. The Christian God's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
That is from a position that Brahman does not exist.  Brahman's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.

Do you believe in Brahman?
#524
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Unless those are the facts (I.e., they do come from 66 different ancient manuscripts and that is what those manuscripts state). 
Please define "fact".
#525
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.
Sure it matters. Then it matters whether you believe in this God or not. Then it matters in that God provides the necessary best that morality is based upon. Then it matters whether or not you believe in the one means God has given that reconciles us to Him. And a thousand more things.  
Insisting "it matters" is a bald assertion and an appeal to ignorance.

(IFF) your hypothetical god is omnipotent and omniscient and the sole origin and creator of all things (THEN) we are exactly what god intended, each one of us is a perfect representation of god's infinite wisdom.

And before you go all, free-willy on me, please understand that,

(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.

Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.

Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
#526
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms.  So do humans.  And we've had them for a very long time. 
They do not debate about moral values but humans do. 
They negotiate social norms.

Different families develop unique customs.

Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.
#527
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Thog is defined as personal.

To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.
You are very lucky, some might even say privileged for Thog to speak to you.

So what has Thog said to you?
Thog doesn't speak much.  Thog demonstrates pure gnosis.

If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally.  Emphasis on personally.
#528
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The question is whether these principles existed before the Hammurabi Code and the biblical logic is of course. 
If that's true, and it seems very likely that mammalian social instincts did exist before Abraham, then why the heck do we need an old book?
So that God, rather than humans, would express to humanity the code in writing. 

And don't get me wrong, I believe there is some basic, fundamental, coherent, scalable, code of human morality, based on primary AXIOMS.

But those primary AXIOMS don't seem to be written anywhere in your old book.
The Ten Commandments which Jesus summed up in two. They codify that which God expects of humanity and I think they have a far-reaching effect since even those who do not recognize the Bible as the word of God, or God, live by them to some degree. In most societies, many of these codes of conduct exist. They seem to be universally known or understood. The biblical explanation is that God has put this understanding innately into our very being (humans are moral beings) and however marred we are because of the Fall, we still retain a sense of right and wrong to some extent. The problem is that we no longer rely upon God as the ultimate standard but humanity becomes the measure, thus anything can be passed off as right or good. Instead of an objective, absolute, unchanging standard, without God as the necessary being in revealing such a standard all we have is relativism, a changing standard that loses its identity to subjectivism. Thus morality and oughts become likes and preferences. What is descriptive (I like) becomes what ought to be (You should do - prescriptive).

I invite you to prove otherwise.  
#529
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions. 
Here come the thought police.
Are you saying it is good to desire something that belongs to someone else? It shows a lack of contentment. It can lead to more serious issues, like stealing. 
The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.
It depends on what you do with that money but in many, perhaps most cases, I agree that it leads to greed. It is not money that is evil, it is the love or worship of it that causes evil. God knows we need money to live. 


It is impossible to police people's thoughts, and furthermore even if it was possible, it would be a gross violation of personal privacy.
What is this thought police you keep referring to? God knows your thoughts but I don't. I can get an idea of how you think about from what you express to a degree. How is the Bible doing that? It is telling OT Israel directly and us indirectly what is wrong and the consequences of such action. If you choose to ignore the good you contribute to the wrong and there is an accountability to God since we are His creatures, we owe our existence to Him.


A MUCH MORE PRACTICAL LAW would be to say, "Thou shalt not accumulate wealth in excess of your basic needs".
It depends on what you do with what you have. If you reinvest it into creating jobs and wealth for others it is put to use for the good. 

This actually squares with a lot of things Jesus taught about the dangers of material wealth. [LINK]
What is the point you want me to glean from this? That you see contradictions in the Bible? 
#530
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Love God.
Unverifiable Qualia.  And thought police.
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.
Error-slave can only make errors.

I have no idea what point you are making.
#531
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
It's subjective principles include:
That is from a position that God does not exist. The Christian God's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
That is from a position that Brahman does not exist.  Brahman's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
I do not believe Brahman is God. I believe the teachings from the two religious beliefs are contrary to each other in many aspects. Logically, one has to be wrong. 

So how has Braman revealed himself/herself/itself and how reliable is that testimony? How do Brahman's decrees stack up on our experience? Can we live consistently by these decrees?


Do you believe in Brahman?
Only as a man-made false god.
#532
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Unless those are the facts (I.e., they do come from 66 different ancient manuscripts and that is what those manuscripts state). 
Please define "fact".

What corresponds to what is the case.

Do the biblical teachings come from the 66 writings we call the Bible canon? Do these writings actually convey to the reader God and according to these writings His thoughts, commands, warnings, and decrees?
#533
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.
It depends on what you do with that money but in many, perhaps most cases, I agree that it leads to greed. It is not money that is evil, it is the love or worship of it that causes evil. God knows we need money to live. 
Now you're back to endorsing thought-police.
#534
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Please define "fact".
What corresponds to what is the case.

Do the biblical teachings come from the 66 writings we call the Bible canon? Do these writings actually convey to the reader God and according to these writings His thoughts, commands, warnings, and decrees?
If you can't verify that something "corresponds to what is the case" then you can't call it a FACT.

You're simply dressing up OPINION by painting it with a cheap coat of "FACT".
#535
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.
Error-slave can only make errors.
I have no idea what point you are making.
I say, if you follow god, then you are a god-slave.

Others say, if you DON'T follow god, then you are an error-slave.

I say, if you are an error-slave, how can you be expected to identify "the truth"?????????????????????
#536
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.
Sure it matters. Then it matters whether you believe in this God or not. Then it matters in that God provides the necessary best that morality is based upon. Then it matters whether or not you believe in the one means God has given that reconciles us to Him. And a thousand more things.  
Insisting "it matters" is a bald assertion and an appeal to ignorance.
IFF this God exists it matters for He has disclosed it matters. You made up a logical statement on the IFF. I responded to your scenario even though I believe it is not hypothetical that God exists as you do. So I responded to your logic with THEN statements in correspondence and response to your original premise.

(IFF) your hypothetical god is omnipotent and omniscient and the sole origin and creator of all things (THEN) we are exactly what god intended, each one of us is a perfect representation of god's infinite wisdom.
No, we are not what God intended since the Fall. God intended the human to choose whether he wanted a loving relationship with God. God created the human being as 'good,' yet with the ability to choose. We disobeyed God in Adam. Adam was our federal head. He represented us. Adam determined the outcome by his actions and God permitted him his choice and the consequences. 

And before you go all, free-willy on me, please understand that,

(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.
There again, Adam had free will. We do not in the sense that our wills are influenced by any number of factors, one of which is that we do not want a relationship with God. The Bible reveals the "natural man" does not seek God. That is why Jesus said we must be born again. We need a chanced mind towards God. That comes from His revelation, His word, His Spirit at work in our life, His Son. As natural people, I believe we seek what we desire rather than what is good to a large degree. We want to be autonomous. 

Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.
As I said, we have volition, a will, and we choose yet our desires are selfish. Our goal is sided towards our own selves. 

Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
True, it is influenced. The only persons who had the possibility to not sin were Adam and Eve. That was before the Fall. They had the choice to sin, or to not sin. Adam's choice affected us. Our natures have changed with the Fall. We sin and have a propensity to sin. We inherit that nature of disobedience from them. Once God was ignored and they chose to know evil they were distanced from the purity and holiness that is God. They started to do their own thing with themselves as their guides. They no longer had the witness and example of God. He withdrew.

Now, we choose to sin and cannot avoid sinning. That possibility is no longer an option. If you think it is, then try for a week not to lie, not to steal, not to covet, not to commit adultery in your mind, to hate (which Jesus likened to murder) for the same malice is present in those who murder. 
#537
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms.  So do humans.  And we've had them for a very long time. 
They do not debate about moral values but humans do. 
They negotiate social norms.
How do they do it and how is that a moral issue? 

Different families develop unique customs.

Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.
By instinct. Do they think and reason that eating another animal is wrong? Do they debate whether one takes the prey from another is wrong or do they just do it if they are stronger and are able to do so? Do they have elaborate laws on what is an is not to be done?

#538
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
No, we are not what God intended since the Fall.
Your hypothetical god should plan ahead a little better.

I guess "omniscience" is out-the-window?
#539
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Different families develop unique customs.

Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.
By instinct.
And learned behavior.

Do they think and reason that eating another animal is wrong? Do they debate whether one takes the prey from another is wrong or do they just do it if they are stronger and are able to do so? Do they have elaborate laws on what is an is not to be done?
For example, apes will sometimes make a false alarm call to scare the troop away from a choice piece of food, but if they are caught (lying and stealing), the troop beats them senseless.
#540
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Thog is defined as personal.

To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.
You are very lucky, some might even say privileged for Thog to speak to you.

So what has Thog said to you?
Thog doesn't speak much.  Thog demonstrates pure gnosis.

If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally.  Emphasis on personally.

So there is no evidence unless Thog decides to personally contact you. It is totally subjective to your mind and your testimony. So, establish your testimony is reliable. That is the difference between the biblical revelation and your revelation. There are many external pieces of evidence and proof than just me. Yours, to date, depends solely on yourself as a reliable witness. Why should I believe you? Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?