-->
@Mopac
Nah.. the laws of nature aren't an agent, so... no, that doesn't work.
What's your best argument for God's existence?
Posts
Total:
372
-->
@Theweakeredge
That has no relation to anything I said, from certain perspectives - something could be immoral, from others it could be moral - the same thing applies to laws. Why don't you try again
What’s your point? Because I never disputed that.
-->
@Theweakeredge
An agent is "something that produces or is capable of producing an effect"
-->
@Tarik
Then morality isn't objective, thats my only point.
-->
@Mopac
Thats not what I referring to, I was referring to an agent as - "a being with the capacity to act"
-->
@Theweakeredge
People having different perspectives doesn’t prove it’s subjective.
-->
@Tarik
That wasn't my argument, my argument was waaaay earlier, and you practically ignored it
-->
@Theweakeredge
But the different perspectives argument is what I called you out on, if that’s not your argument then what’s the point of making it?
-->
@Tarik
I never made that argument as an affirmative for subjective morality, I was correcting something you were incorrect about. If you didn't "call me out" on the other argument do you accept it? Because if you accept it then you agree that morality is subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
A being is "something that actually exists".
-->
@Mopac
um... I have no idea where you got that specific definition, but I didn't get that, here's what I got from being: "a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one"
Plus... seriously? Another semantic argument?
-->
@Theweakeredge
What exactly was I incorrect about? Because arguing that people have different perspectives is only fitting if I said the opposite or something remotely close, at the end of the day certain perspectives are irrelevant if they’re objectively wrong.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is definition 1 b (2), Merriam Webster.
Definition 1 a is
"the quality or state of having existence"
-->
@Tarik
You continously thought that something being "factual" is enough to make it objectively moral. There has to be an objective link between the standard and morality in order for it to be objective morals. That doesn't happen, and according to my argument which you'v ignored the mention of, it can't happen. Also also - certain perspectives are objectively wrong? Let's say I buy that claim, so what? Other perspective's aren't wrong.
-->
@Mopac
Uh huh, but the majority of the other definitions don't include that, and by "being" I was referring to my definition - not yours. So... your semantic arguments are getting a little old. Any argument which only premise relies on the definition of the word with no deductive reasoning is begging the question almost all of the time.
-->
@Sum1hugme
The definition you provided of organized requires orderliness. But the problem is just transferred because fundamentally, order vs disorder faces the exact same problem of being arbitrary to what the individual considers orderly or disorderly.
Sorry, I've let too much time pass since your post #90 posing the above. Here:
The distinction I draw other than a visual distinction of apparent organization v. chaos, such as the planet Saturn [organized] and its rings [chaos] is that matter or energy organized has specific purpose that is observable and measurable, whereas chaotic, or disorganized matter/energy, is purposeless and, while it may be observable, purpose doesn't exist. In fact, if anything, it is completely under the control of something else, even if that something is exemplified as if God had a junk closet, and the disorganized matter/energy is simply stuffed in it to be sorted and organized at a later date. Only the door prevents it from being allowed to tumble out and block the hallway, disturbing, challenging, obstructing purpose.
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you take the universe as the ultimate reality, you are a pantheist whether or not you acknowledge that fact.
That is where I am at with the issue.
-->
@Mopac
Cool? But no, that's not how that works, in order to be a "pantheist" you must believe that there is some sort of agency to the universe itself, otherwise you are trying to glue on another term to a word that already has a term and that term already means something completely different. Imagine this, you have a chair, and you sit on the chair and you go, "You know what - this chair is a car. And anyone who sits on this chair is technically 'driving the car'." I mean sure.. if you define the chair as a car, yes you are driving the car, but you aren't really driving the car. The same thing applies to this definition.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Before we go any further you are aware that all facts are objective right?
-->
@Tarik
I am quite aware, however you are not aware of the layers of objectivity. There is the actual standard itself, lets say, well-being. Obviously well-being is true, certain things affect human beings mentally and physically in an objective way. If I drop a hammer on my foot, my foot will be injured, etc etc. But that relation to morality? Not quite. As there is no objective reason to conclude that human beings being harmed or benefited is moral or immoral. We have biases that say, "Of course humans being hurt is immoral" But if we were to look at say - the universe - then certain actions which would be moral for humans would be immoral to a universe. There is more in moral philosophy than just the standard.
-->
@Tarik
Also - technically speaking - a fact is something that is either known to be or proven to be true. Therefore if something which is proven to be true but is also contingent on the mind, it can be a fact and subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Such as?
-->
@Tarik
Such as the fact that I can feel sad or happy. This is entirely based on the mind, and without one you wouldn't have these emotions, but I can still prove (to a degree) that I am happy or sad. You also ignored my other post, and for the third time, my argument. I am starting to assume you agree with it at this point.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Refresh my memory
-->
@Tarik
Objective - “Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”
Morality - “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Real - “Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.”
Subjective - “Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence”
P1: Morality is definitionally contingent on principles
P2: All principles used to affirm morality are from the mind
Con: Therefore all morality is definitionally subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I didn’t ignore this I said based off the definition of affirm something stated as objective should be believed as such.
-->
@Tarik
Thats just wrong, you are just incorrect. "Stated as" Does not translate to "IS" there is a distinction. You are just fundmentally flawed with your understanding of morality
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let's say I buy that claim, so what? It does not translate to “ISN’T” either so if that’s your only play here it’s a meaningless weak one.
-->
@Tarik
What? The entire point is that principles are necessarily dependent on a mind for them to be true. Because of that they are not objective by definition. That means that the principles which inform morality are subjective, so is morality. That is the argument, what you are saying makes literally no sense and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. It doesn't matter if the princples are facts or not facts, as things which are subjective can be facts, but they aren't facts as they haven't been demonstrated, your entire argument is the most semantic thing I've ever seen and not at all cogent.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That makes no sense, so if my mind says murder is wrong and your mind says it’s right then since we both have a mind they’re both true? That’s fundamentally impossible.