Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 563
#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
On God's being and omnipresence - 

Exodus 3:14 (NASB)
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24).
I've read all of those scripture references and they only support the assertion that god is everywhere-that-humans-are.  It never says that god is also on Mars or the Andromeda galaxy for example.  It only implies that humans (more specifically the author of that passage) cannot escape god.
If, as the Bible reveals, God made the physical universe and He transcends it (it is not Him but He is separate from it) then His presence would fill the whole universe. There would be nowhere I could go away from His Spirit including Mars. Since the first passage of the Bible reveals He created everything His presence would be everywhere in His creation.

The passage would depend on the purpose that God wanted the primary audience of the address to know, and us after that. That would be us humans, yes.


The specific claim, "transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now" does not appear in any of those references.
I gave you many others. The revelation does not stand on only one verse or passage. It just gives you a further glimpse of who He is. 



AND, what makes your god a "he"?
God is not like humans in a physical sense, although they are created in His image and likeness.

Calling God "He/Him" is how He has revealed Himself to humanity, in the masculine pronoun. 
#512
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Logically! The question is, why are you or I if there is not objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
That is why we have conversations.

Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.

When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates mercenaries).

When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates cowards).

When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates slaves).
#513
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am a little irked at your modification/interpretation of the words of Saint Basil.



#514
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It's also a rough paraphrasing of,

When Tao is lost, there is [a general sense of] goodness.
When [a general sense of] goodness is lost, there is [an obligatory sense of] kindness.
When [an obligatory sense of] kindness is lost, there is [a consensus of] justice.
When [a consensus of] justice is lost, there is [etiquette, morality and] ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future [inductive reasoning] is only a flowery trapping [ephemeral epiphenomenon] of the Tao.

It is the beginning of folly.

- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

#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
Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference.
That is correct.

(Context of what follows)

Logically! The question is, why are you or I, if there is not objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter [right]?
That is why we have conversations.
Well, the question becomes who is actually right is there is no ultimate reference point? Is there such a thing without an ultimate, objective, absolute reference-point/measure?


Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.
Where is the logic in two opposing and contradictory views regarding the same thing  - -> rightness? (each opposing view claiming they are right) One, logically, has to be wrong.

Where do you start, logically speaking? I am right because I prefer to be? How does that make you right?

How can you persuade someone you are right if "right" is a shifting standard of preference. Let's call it for what it is --> preference/like/feelings.

Because I like or prefer something that does not make it right. It just makes it something I like or prefer. 

Unless there is an ultimate standard or measure, rightness loses its identity. The law of identity is contravened. Thus, such a view as yours is illogical.

 
When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates mercenaries).
So you pay someone to side with you. What makes that right?

If there is no "best" to compare right and wrong from anything can pass as "right." If there is no "Best" how do you ever establish right? All you establish is the preference. Hitler preferred to kill Jews. What is your preference? I'm sure that you may say such things but you can't live consistently by them because as soon as you are in the line similar to Auschwitz you know it is no longer relative. Some things are just plain evil. 


When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates cowards).
You (or however the "we" are) force your preference and opinions on others without ever knowing the "right!"

Again, it boils down to not what is right but what you like. If you have the means you will do whatever it takes to enforce your desires, your preferences. If not, you will be the slave of others. That worldview makes nothing right. It is bankrupt of goodness for it has no value system, it can't distinguish right, just pleasure, pain, and preference. 


When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates slaves).

Thus, all the wars fought throughout humanity have not been because something is "good" but because those with the more might enact their will and preference over those who are weaker, which you can't even call evil in the case of what Hitler did because morality is a shifting standard of preference. It makes a mockery of morality. 
#516
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Before we called ourselves Christians(which actually originated to make fun of our sacrament of Chrismation, but we took it), it was simply said that we follow The Way.

Thought you might find that interesting. Tao means "The Way". 

#517
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Well, the question becomes who is actually right is there is no ultimate reference point? Is there such a thing without an ultimate, objective, absolute reference-point/measure?

Which party is "in the right"?

How does the holy scripture apply to (fix/solve/illuminate) this type of scenario?
#518
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, the question becomes who is actually right is there is no ultimate reference point? Is there such a thing without an ultimate, objective, absolute reference-point/measure?
What does this five-minute cartoon lampooning with poetic license a historic event have to do with an ultimate, objective, ultimate reference point or morality?


Which party is "in the right"?
That would depend on whether there is an ultimate, absolute, objective reference point. If not, both are exercising their preferences. 

The one system of government is more oppressive and more limiting in freedoms than the other. It was spreading its influence around the world, hence, the cold-war. 


How does the holy scripture apply to (fix/solve/illuminate) this type of scenario?

The reason is that if it is from God then we have such a fixed, ultimate measure - God. When God tells us it is wrong to murder or lie, it is wrong because those qualities and actions (lying and murder) are the opposite of God's nature and goodness. Thus, God is the "best" that illuminates light and darkness, goodness and evil. When we compare something to His revelation we can know what is objective and true in as much as He has revealed it.

Without God, it is, as you agree, relative and subjective. Without God, there is no fixed reference point you can identify, which means that any reference point can apply as long as those applying it have the means to do so. When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict. The question is which one since they are both bathed in relativism? How would you ever know? It is impossible to know rightness from such a system of thought. All you can know is what the other prefers or has the means to enact. There is no way of knowing goodness unless there is a "best" to reference the positions against as to there compliance with the best. If there is no "best" how will you ever know when something is better than something else? Positions would evolve and change but what makes that good? Because you like it? Well, what if I like the opposite? Then what? 
#519
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.
Not necessarily.

This is why it is of paramount importance that the distinction between FACT and OPINION is clearly understood.

Matters of FACT are (EITHER) verifiably true (OR) verifiably false (OR) beyond our epistemological limits.

Matters of OPINION are (NEITHER) true (NOR) false.

Imagine for a minute, that you are living on a small island thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

You have a dispute with your neighbor.  Your neighbor borrowed your horse and it was seriously injured (accidentally) under their care.  You try and talk it out, but you are unable to resolve your dispute.  You can't consult your holy scriptures because the written word hasn't been invented yet.  So you try and convince your other neighbors to take your side and talk some sense into the person who borrowed your horse.  When that doesn't work, you go to the village elders and plead your case.

I'm not sure how "no fixed reference point" in any way impedes this perfectly logical and intuitive process.

Your dispute with your neighbor is a matter of OPINION.
#520
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.
Not necessarily.
How so?

Good = Eat your neighbour
Good = Do not eat your neighbour

If one of these two propositions is true the other cannot be true for they both say contrary things regarding the same thing - Good, and what that means. Sometimes, depending on the two propositions, it is possible that both are wrong, but both cannot be right when they state opposites.


Dog = dog.
Dog = cat. 

One of these two statements is wrong. Both cannot be right.

It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time. 


This is why it is of paramount importance that the distinction between FACT and OPINION is clearly understood.
"Facts" are what is the case. "Opinions" are beliefs that may or may not correspond to the facts. "Opinion" is what someone believes is the case and it is only true if it conforms to what is the case. 


Matters of FACT are (EITHER) verifiably true (OR) verifiably false (OR) beyond our epistemological limits.
How can something be a fact unless it is true; unless it is the case?

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

***


1a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY


Matters of OPINION are (NEITHER) true (NOR) false.
Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question. Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter.


Imagine for a minute, that you are living on a small island thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

You have a dispute with your neighbor.  Your neighbor borrowed your horse and it was seriously injured (accidentally) under their care.  You try and talk it out, but you are unable to resolve your dispute.  You can't consult your holy scriptures because the written word hasn't been invented yet.  So you try and convince your other neighbors to take your side and talk some sense into the person who borrowed your horse.  When that doesn't work, you go to the village elders and plead your case.

I'm not sure how "no fixed reference point" in any way impedes this perfectly logical and intuitive process.

Your dispute with your neighbor is a matter of OPINION.


However, once God reveals, there is a self-disclosure regarding the situation. That self-disclosure comes from loving your neighbour and doing what is right and best for your neighbour per God's written instructions. Without knowing the law there is still a heart-knowledge of right and wrong.

 Romans 2:1-3; 12-15 (NASB)
The Impartiality of God
2 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?...
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

 

#521
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.
Not necessarily.
How so?

Good = Eat your neighbour
Good = Do not eat your neighbour
Good is a fundamentally subjective concept.

Good for Aztec warrior = Eat your neighboring tribe members AMONG A GREAT MANY OTHER SUBJECTIVELY GOOD THINGS.

Eating your neighboring tribe members is not the definition of GOOD.

GOOD is a subjective property-of (Qualia) objects and or actions.

If one of these two propositions is true the other cannot be true for they both say contrary things regarding the same thing - Good, and what that means. Sometimes, depending on the two propositions, it is possible that both are wrong, but both cannot be right when they state opposites.
Neither statement can be determined to be tautologically REAL-TRUE-FACT (or even bear any truth-value whatsoever) unless you make your definitions (specifically of the word "GOOD") rigorous and explicit.

Dog = dog.
Dog = cat. 

One of these two statements is wrong. Both cannot be right.
You appear to be suggesting,

A = A

A =/= B

It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time. 
Certainly, but your second example does absolutely nothing to inform your first example.

You have committed a category error (non-sequitur/conflated opinion with fact).

You've basically asserted,

(IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.
#522
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
"Facts" are what is the case. "Opinions" are beliefs that may or may not correspond to the facts. "Opinion" is what someone believes is the case and it is only true if it conforms to what is the case. 
I agree 100%.

Matters of FACT are (EITHER) verifiably true (OR) verifiably false (OR) beyond our epistemological limits.
How can something be a fact unless it is true; unless it is the case?
It is a FACT that the statement, "there are hundreds of millions of ants inside every human head" is a VERIFIABLY FALSE statement.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

***


1a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
I agree 100%.

Matters of OPINION are (NEITHER) true (NOR) false.
Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question. Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter.
This is categorically incorrect.  (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.

Imagine for a minute, that you are living on a small island thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

You have a dispute with your neighbor.  Your neighbor borrowed your horse and it was seriously injured (accidentally) under their care.  You try and talk it out, but you are unable to resolve your dispute.  You can't consult your holy scriptures because the written word hasn't been invented yet.  So you try and convince your other neighbors to take your side and talk some sense into the person who borrowed your horse.  When that doesn't work, you go to the village elders and plead your case.

I'm not sure how "no fixed reference point" in any way impedes this perfectly logical and intuitive process.

Your dispute with your neighbor is a matter of OPINION.
However, once God reveals,
Hold the flip on.

I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."

there is a self-disclosure regarding the situation. That self-disclosure comes from loving your neighbour and doing what is right and best for your neighbour per God's written instructions.
Seriously, you have no written instructions in the hypothetical.

Without knowing the law there is still a heart-knowledge of right and wrong.
Ok, are you suggesting that our social instincts (personal conscience) will resolve human conflicts?
#523
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.
Not necessarily.
How so?

Good = Eat your neighbour
Good = Do not eat your neighbour
Good is a fundamentally subjective concept.
Is it? 

Basically, you have said "good" is a preference. What makes it good then? I like ice-cream. Ice-cream is good! You should like ice-cream too.

What I believe you are confusing is subjective feelings with ethics/morality. You confuse what is the case - I like ice-cream, with what ought to be the case. You are also confusing two different things, goodness with preference. My subjective feelings do not make something good unless it is good, no matter what I believe about goodness. The example regarding ice-cream confuses subjective TASTE with what ought to be.

Goodness has to have a fixed reference point to know what goodness is or else you cannot say something is better than something else. Better in relation to what? Your subjective feelings? The feelings that you and those like-minded like? Subsequently, there must be a best to compare it with or else the standard is always in flux.  


Good for Aztec warrior = Eat your neighboring tribe members AMONG A GREAT MANY OTHER SUBJECTIVELY GOOD THINGS.
Good, or what they enjoyed? 

Good, okay, you're next! You see, your worldview becomes inconsistent when it fails the experiential test. Sure, you can think it but can you live it? 

And if what you say is the case, preference, what is wrong with Hitler's Germany? That was good for Hitler and the German culture (via propaganda). Why should I believe your view is any better if better is a changing standard based on subjective preference? What about my preference that is the opposite of yours? Why is that not right? Obviously, good is an identity. Logically it can't be two contradictory things at the same time. Either killing the unborn one minute before birth is good or it is not good. It can't be both at the same time. 


Eating your neighboring tribe members is not the definition of GOOD.

GOOD is a subjective property-of (Qualia) objects and or actions.
You are confusing qualitative with quantitative. They are two different measuring systems. One is physical, the other is intangible. David Hume argued you can't get an "ought" from an "is." That is the is/ought fallacy. Just because someone likes something does not make it good. It just makes it liked. 


If one of these two propositions is true the other cannot be true for they both say contrary things regarding the same thing - Good, and what that means. Sometimes, depending on the two propositions, it is possible that both are wrong, but both cannot be right when they state opposites.
Neither statement can be determined to be tautologically REAL-TRUE-FACT (or even bear any truth-value whatsoever) unless you make your definitions (specifically of the word "GOOD") rigorous and explicit.
I did. Good = good. Good =/= (does not equal) bad or evil. They are contrary to each other. 


Dog = dog.
Dog = cat. 

One of these two statements is wrong. Both cannot be right.
You appear to be suggesting,

A = A

A =/= B
No, what I am saying is that if you identify what we call the word "dog" as a specific four-footed animal it can't be another type of animal and still make sense. It loses its identity. Thus calling something a dog fits a specific kind of animal. It can't be a different type of animal and still be a dog. Logically that is not possible because it speaks of two different animals, not the same kind of animal. It is a contradiction to call a dog a cat, yet relativism employs this kind of reasoning with goodness. 

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Even what some on these forums call "primitive goat-tribes" understood a principle that modern humanity is finding difficult to understand. 


It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time. 
Certainly, but your second example does absolutely nothing to inform your first example.

You have committed a category error (non-sequitur/conflated opinion with fact).

You've basically asserted,

(IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.


No, I have not. You asserted that (IFF) 1+1 = 2 (THEN) I love you. I never mentioned (IFF) 1+1 = 2 (THEN) I love you. That is not my point. 

My inference has to do with the law of identity, although I did not state it specifically, in regards to logic.

"It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time."

It either is the case that a dog is a dog or it is not the case, but once the law of identity is jettisoned, a dog can be a cat which makes no sense because it has a different identity and is contrary to what it actually is. Thus, Dog = Cat is contrary to Dog = Dog. It can't be both because it loses its identity, yet that is what happens with subjectivism and how different people define "good" or "right."

Dog = Dog --> law of identity

Dog = Cat --> contrary to the law of identity.
#524
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Goodness has to have a fixed reference point to know what goodness is or else you cannot say something is better than something else.
This statement is provably false.  This is a good conversation.

Better in relation to what? Your subjective feelings? The feelings that you and those like-minded like? Subsequently, there must be a best to compare it with or else the standard is always in flux.  
Welcome to reality.  We call this, "planet Earth".
#525
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
My inference has to do with the law of identity, although I did not state it specifically, in regards to logic.
Certainly, but your second example does absolutely nothing to inform your first example.

Please explain how this relates in-any-way to the ideas of either goodness or ethics or morality.
#526
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
"Facts" are what is the case. "Opinions" are beliefs that may or may not correspond to the facts. "Opinion" is what someone believes is the case and it is only true if it conforms to what is the case. 
I agree 100%.

Matters of FACT are (EITHER) verifiably true (OR) verifiably false (OR) beyond our epistemological limits.
How can something be a fact unless it is true; unless it is the case?
It is a FACT that the statement, "there are hundreds of millions of ants inside every human head" is a VERIFIABLY FALSE statement.
Yes, the fact is that the statement is false.

Another way to say it:
It is true that the statement is false. OR
It is a fact that the statement is false.

Thus, the case or fact is that the statement is false, even if you believe the statement to be true. What is fact corresponds to what is true. 


Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

***


1a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
I agree 100%.

Matters of OPINION are (NEITHER) true (NOR) false.
Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question. Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter.
This is categorically incorrect.  (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.
If your belief corresponds to the fact, even though it is just an opinion and not known by you, your opinion is true to what is.

Or as stated:

"Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question."

Matters of opinion either correspond to the fact(s), or they do not. If they correspond to the fact(s) they are true to what is the case. If they are not true to what is the case they are wrong or false to the fact(s)/truth. An opinion cannot correspond to the fact(s) and not correspond to the fact(s) at the same time. To do both at the same time would be a contradiction or logically unsound and nonsensical. 

Or as stated:

"Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter."



Imagine for a minute, that you are living on a small island thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

You have a dispute with your neighbor.  Your neighbor borrowed your horse and it was seriously injured (accidentally) under their care.  You try and talk it out, but you are unable to resolve your dispute.  You can't consult your holy scriptures because the written word hasn't been invented yet.  So you try and convince your other neighbors to take your side and talk some sense into the person who borrowed your horse.  When that doesn't work, you go to the village elders and plead your case.

I'm not sure how "no fixed reference point" in any way impedes this perfectly logical and intuitive process.

Your dispute with your neighbor is a matter of OPINION.
However, once God reveals,
Hold the flip on.

I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."
So, what is the inference you want me to glean? The people Christ came to were under a covenant with God that was initiated well over a thousand years before Jesus. The reference was for specific people (OT Israel) in how they should live before God, but the principles (The Ten Commandment) apply to all people. 


there is a self-disclosure regarding the situation. That self-disclosure comes from loving your neighbour and doing what is right and best for your neighbour per God's written instructions.
Seriously, you have no written instructions in the hypothetical.
That is your presupposition based on an opposing worldview. It assumes what is said to be a revelation from God as not so.


Without knowing the law there is still a heart-knowledge of right and wrong.
Ok, are you suggesting that our social instincts (personal conscience) will resolve human conflicts?


Not always justly when that personal consciousness is marred by sin and desires that are contrary to His revelation, the biblical teaching. 

Again, it boils down to whether the source of morality is solely subjective and relative or whether there is an objective reference point of appeal to know. Again, if it is subjective and relative why is that "good?" Because you define "good?" What about my definition that is contrary to yours? Again, at least one of the two contrary views is wrong. 
#527
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Goodness has to have a fixed reference point to know what goodness is or else you cannot say something is better than something else.
This statement is provably false. 
Then do so!

Goodness as a moral issue? As such, it corresponds to a specific value (a qualitative value), that which is right or true to the standard. If that standard is changing (not fixed) then goodness can mean two different things at the same time, depending on who holds the view. That is a logical contradiction. It does NOT apply to the law of identity, the law of contradiction, or the law of excluded middle. 

Thus, in if an individual 'A' hold one view and 'B' holds the opposite view, who is right? Nobody, one, or the other?

When two opposite views are held by two different cultures, which is the right or true view? You can't say either is; all you can say is "I like this," or "I like that." All you can do is express your preference - "I like ice-cream, therefore you should like ice-cream too" or "I like to torture the poor and innocent for my pleasure and you should like it too!" You are treating both opposing qualities, that are both identified as the good, as equally valid depending on how someone/you feel. What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case? Nothing unless it corresponds to the actual case - goodness. Your natural worldview can't nail down a specific, fixed measure. It is all over the place. Societies that live without God as the ultimate, objective, absolute, universal fixed measure can't make sense of good. All they can do is say, "I like this and I hope you will too," or "I like this and you will like it too!" They don't have a fixed reference point they can fix goodness too and you can witness it in such relative societies throughout time and in the world today. One society permits or likes abortion, another does not. One permits or likes the practice of capital punishment, another does not. 

In the case of a person who lives on the border between two cultures, shares duel citizenship, and one culture believes it is good and a must to have slaves, and the other culture strictly forbids it, who is actually right in their view and how should you live? 

If something is morally good to a specific thing or issue, then how can "good" mean a, b, c, d, e, f...x, y, z at the same time and in regard to the same issue/matter? If it can mean all these things, or the opposite, depending on who holds the view, how can you say it is good? All you can say is "I don't like it." Try living experientially without good having a specific identity. If it has no specific identity it can mean anything. It can mean the extermination of whole groups or classes of people. It can mean the discrimination of people because they don't think the same way you do. 



This is a good conversation.

Better in relation to what? Your subjective feelings? The feelings that you and those like-minded like? Subsequently, there must be a best to compare it with or else the standard is always in flux.  
Welcome to reality.  We call this, "planet Earth".


That is the difference between our two worldviews. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of truth, goodness, morality, what is right. A natural or materialistic worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of qualitative values. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview when you speak of goodness rather than preference. To be consistent you should eliminate that word (goodness) from your vocabulary. To be consistent with a naturalistic worldview you should not object to what other cultures do to their people. They are just practicing their preferences. What is wrong with that since it does not affect you directly. But it could if that culture was to subvert your culture and you are one of those people who happen to be taboo to their likes. Then your feelings do tend to hold to "some things are objectively and definitely evil." Then you understand you have a worldview that you can't live by or at least not consistently. Then you have a choice if you live. You can either change your current worldview and adopt one that makes sense or you can live inconsistently with it. Inconsistency is a sign that something is definitely wrong with your thinking, whether you want to admit it or not. 
#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
My inference has to do with the law of identity, although I did not state it specifically, in regards to logic.
Certainly, but your second example does absolutely nothing to inform your first example.
Okay, I meant them to be two examples of the same thing, the acceptance and violation of the law of identity.


Please explain how this relates in-any-way to the ideas of either goodness or ethics or morality.

Dog = Dog

Good = Good

Both examples have a specific identity. They both mean a specific thing. When I say "Dog" then a specific kind of animal comes to mind. If I have the wrong idea of what "Dog" is then it does not identify with what its true nature is. If there is no fixed identity then "Dog" loses its identity and can mean whatever I want it to mean or you want it to mean, thus communication and meaning become irrational concepts, just like Dog does.  

The difference in this particular case is that one set is qualifiable via physical means (sight) and the other is verifiable via the senses/logic. One has a quantitative aspect or if you like, a physical measure of verification to it; the other has a qualitative aspect or measure to it. But the thing is each specific set listed (Dog = Dog; Good = Good) has its own identity, not two or more conflicting identities. It can only be that thing which it is or else it loses its identity. 
#529
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
This is categorically incorrect.  (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.
If your belief corresponds to the fact, even though it is just an opinion and not known by you, your opinion is true to what is.
OPINIONS can ONLY be (EITHER) sincere (OR) insincere.

OPINIONS are not facts.

(IFF) a particular OPINION corresponds to FACTS (THEN) it instantly ceases to be an OPINION (AND) is from that point forward simply considered a FACT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide an example of a statement you believe qualifies as BOTH a FACT and an OPINION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#530
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."
So, what is the inference you want me to glean? The people Christ came to were under a covenant with God that was initiated well over a thousand years before Jesus. The reference was for specific people (OT Israel) in how they should live before God, but the principles (The Ten Commandment) apply to all people. 
Can you imagine a time before Abraham?

Look, forget about all that.

Is it "good" for a wolf to eat a baby rabbit?
#531
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Goodness as a moral issue? As such, it corresponds to a specific value (a qualitative value), that which is right or true to the standard. If that standard is changing (not fixed) then goodness can mean two different things at the same time, depending on who holds the view.
Quantifiable FACTS are ABSOLUTE, like the cardinal directions, North, South, East, and West.

Qualitative OPINIONS are RELATIVE, like Left and Right, Up and Down.

What you are arguing is basically, (IFF) North, South, East, and West are ABSOLUTE (THEN) Left, Right, Up, and Down must also be ABSOLUTE.

THIS IS A CATEGORY ERROR.
#532
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Dog = Dog = rigorously defined, scientifically Quantifiable FACT.

Good = Good = relatively defined, personal, experiential, Qualitative OPINION.

Both examples have a specific identity. They both mean a specific thing.
Only one of your examples has a rigorously defined, scientifically verifiable, SPECIFIC identity.

GOOD:

  • Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor.
  • Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing. [LINK]
#533
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case?
You can never get an "ought" from an "is" (Hume's Guillotine). [LINK] and [LINK]
#534
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
This is categorically incorrect.  (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.
If your belief corresponds to the fact, even though it is just an opinion and not known by you, your opinion is true to what is.
OPINIONS can ONLY be (EITHER) sincere (OR) insincere.
True!


OPINIONS are not facts.
They either correspond to the facts or they don't. Sometimes the facts are not known and there is no way of verifying the opinion as true.


(IFF) a particular OPINION corresponds to FACTS (THEN) it instantly ceases to be an OPINION (AND) is from that point forward simply considered a FACT.
You don't know what you believe is actually true to a fact (hence, your opinion) but it is true to the fact.

Opinion --> a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge 

An opinion has not been justified by you as a fact but you may think it is reasonable, thus you could believe it or just offer it as an option of what could be the case because it seems reasonable to you. But it does correspond to the fact, unbeknownst to you. Thus, in that case, your opinion is true to the fact but you don't know it is true to the case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide an example of a statement you believe qualifies as BOTH a FACT and an OPINION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two examples:

1) Opinion: "I believe it will rain tomorrow." Fact: It rains tomorrow. 

2) "I believe there is a God." Or, to put it another way, "It is my opinion that God exists." If that opinion corresponds with what is the case then the opinion has been justified. Therefore, Fact: God exists. If you can't justify the opinion is the case it remains just your opinion, whether that opinion is reasonable to believe or not.

An opinion is different from justifying your belief as true or proving as a certainty the belief is what is the case (knowledge).

If your opinion (belief) corresponds to what is the case, then it is true, even if you do not know it to be the case.
#535
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
1) Opinion: "I believe it will rain tomorrow."
I'm not sure this is 100% opinion.  This is more of a prediction regarding a Quantifiable-Event.

An opinion would be, "I believe if it rains tomorrow it will be the most beautiful rain any human has ever seen".

Fact: It rains tomorrow. 
I agree this is a fact.

HOWEVER, the prediction (that it would rain) was not FACT -until- it was verified.

The prediction is merely a unverified prediction (not a fact) up-to-and-until it is verified (at which point it becomes a fact).

And in the case that you believe the rain will be the most beautiful rain any human has ever seen, well, NO AMOUNT OF RAIN WILL EVER MAKE THAT STATEMENT A FACT.

That opinion can never be verified or validated by facts.
#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
I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."
So, what is the inference you want me to glean? The people Christ came to were under a covenant with God that was initiated well over a thousand years before Jesus. The reference was for specific people (OT Israel) in how they should live before God, but the principles (The Ten Commandment) apply to all people. 
Can you imagine a time before Abraham?
Yes. 


Look, forget about all that.

Is it "good" for a wolf to eat a baby rabbit?

Good, in the sense that, for the wolf, it survives; bad for the rabbit, it dies.

The question is "Is there a moral value involved for the animals?" It just happens. The wolf understands to survive he must kill and eat. Is it morally wrong for the wolf to kill the rabbit? Does the wolf understand morality, does he contemplate and weigh the oughtness of the killing, or is it just an instinct in which he does to survive? Not, it knows what is necessary to survive. The rabbit is an opportunity to live longer.

I would say that is the difference between an animal and a human being (created in God's image and likeness). We know (and innately sense) there is a difference between killing and eating a rabbit because you are hungry and killing and eating another human being because our value systems are different from animals.  

There is a difference between a qualitative and quantitative measure. They are measured differently. The quantitative measure is an empirical or physical measure. The quantitative standard has a fixed standard. The standard for lengths and weights is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The qualitative standard is abstract and must also have a fixed standard to measure goodness and evil against. You can't measure it through the physical method by strictly using the senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, and hearing. What does "good" look like? What does it smell like? What does it smell like? What does it taste like? How does it feel? Show me good. Let me touch, taste, feel, smell, and hear it. 

Good is a concept.  

Thus, there is also a difference between what is and what ought to be. How do you get from an is to an ought? Behavioural-based morality is based on the is. How do you measure the ought from the is? By preference? Whose? The question is why is what is morally good or bad? It just is. Good is not a physical thing. It is a concept based on what ought not to be done. Should a wolf not eat? Once you bring in the ought you are not longer solely speaking of what is.  
#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
Dog = Dog = rigorously defined, scientifically Quantifiable FACT.
Dog = Seeable, observable by the five senses. Quantifiable as fact. 



Good = Good = relatively defined, personal, experiential, Qualitative OPINION.
Good = conceptual, not empirically verifiable. Qualitative.

If there is a way of verifying something quantitatively (which is obvious) by establishing a fixed standard that is empirically tested by a fixed standard, how do you do that qualitatively??? You can't use the same measure. 

If you say, it is a matter of preference - whose?  How do you establish something that is fixed and that is actually good? Obviously, since morality is a conceptual system it is mind necessary. Whose mind? It would be a necessary Mind since neither your mind nor mine is necessary. Both our minds are subjective. Unless you can supply what is necessary for making sense of morality - the good - you cannot call it good, just preference. Not only that, you can't establish an unchanging standard like you can with quantitative measures/values UNLESS God exists. God'sexistence supplies the fixed, unchanging, ultimate, objective, absolute, universal reference point. Otherwise, you can't make sense of goodness, all you can do is say I like, I prefer, I feel. That makes nothing morally good.   


Both examples have a specific identity. They both mean a specific thing.
Only one of your examples has a rigorously defined, scientifically verifiable, SPECIFIC identity.
Then you can't know goodness. 

Now you can think such a thing but can you live by it? You live inconsistently by calling something "good" if that is the case. 


GOOD:

  • Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor.
  • Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing. 

No. Morally good in regards to better and best. Without a fixed measure, how do you ever compare, how do you ever say, "This is good?"

What, or more specifically WHO is your fixed measure for "goodness" and what makes it/them universal, objective, absolute, ultimate?

Without a "best" to measure good and better against how can you say something is good? You can't. It is always shifting. You never know when you have arrived. All you can say is "I like it" or "I don't like it." That makes nothing good. It just makes it a personal taste. These are serious flaws in your worldview in making sense of the good. I do not believe your worldview is capable of making sense of morality other than by brute force --> "You will do what I like." Hitler liked killing Jews, and others have liked killing different groups and classes of people. What is your preference?  
#538
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case?
You can never get an "ought" from an "is" (Hume's Guillotine). [LINK] and [LINK]

Concerning the first link, AI systems are only intelligent because they have been programmed by an intelligent being or beings. They derive or trace their existence and origins from such beings programming them. Conversely, in tracing the origin of a solely naturalistic and mechanical process, it is not a reasoning system and it is solely a physical system (no Mind behind it). Somehow, spontaneous generation (organic from the inorganic) happens? The natural process is not oriented or goal-driven. Things just happen. What survives carries on. Goal-driven requires intelligence and meaning. That would not be the case if the universe is solely natural and material. 

Not only this, if humans are nothing more than physical-biological systems (but are they?) that are determined by their environment and genetic make-up they are also determined by happenstance. There is no reason why they continue or should continue as others do or as they have in the past. Thus, there is no reason why what I do should be what you do. It is determined by circumstances beyond my control. I don't have a free will or volition. Things just happen. Chemicals, physics, and biology react.
#539
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...you cannot call it good, just preference. Not only that, you can't establish an unchanging standard like you can with quantitative measures/values UNLESS God exists.
Ok, you seem to have a rudimentary understanding of the difference between Quanta and Qualia.

We seem to agree that a dog is Quanta and good is Qualia.

You insist that good must be Quantifiable and standardized by your hypothetical god.

You insist that we must establish "moral high-ground" by referencing your hypothetical god.

One of the key problems with this approach is the problem of identifying the "perfect and unchanging rules" that your hypothetical god endorses.

The "ten-commandments" is a shockingly inadequate moral/ethical framework.

And most of the rest of it can be summarized as "Jews who worship YHWH good, everyone else is human garbage".
#540
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Good, in the sense that, for the wolf, it survives; bad for the rabbit, it dies.
Perfecto.