-->
@Soluminsanis
I just noticed that you gave this string to two categories. Didn't know one could do that. How?
Another one of my arguments for God's existence
Posts
Total:
105
-->
@Soluminsanis
I suppose that argument has some merit [though you apparently oppose it]. After all, what says there cannot be objective evil? I do not necessarily argue that evil has a good side, I don't, but I still think it has objective characteristics. Is not pure intent an objective philosophy, even if it is evil?
I say this because I believe there must be opposition in all things.
-->
@Soluminsanis
The standard which is logically sound, that doesn't take much work to get to - my point was that there are no objective moral values.. .I mean feel free to try to prove them, but again, morals are definitionally subjective, thats just how morals are, propositional. One person's moral standards could just be dumbed and unfounded, doesn't mean it doesn't exist - which was my point, but it does mean one can be preferred over another. This is like saying: art is subjective - any art could be considered the same - this clearly isn't true. Obviously a professional comic book artist has art and drawings which are using the elements of art and is surperior in every way to say, a five year old's crayon picture. That doesn't mean that crayon picture isn't art, just means its not very good art.
-->
@Soluminsanis
You are right, objectively speaking nothing is wrong or right - because morals don't exist on a objective level. Yes. There is an ethical standard which could justify torturing infants for fun, would that be a very good or convincing ethical standard? Most likely not.
-->
@Theweakeredge
morals are definitionally subjective, thats just how morals are, propositional.
You’ve yet to prove this assertion, you can refer back to your “syllogism” all you want but judging by your dodging of the questions surrounding it the only conclusion to draw is the “syllogism” is flawed.
-->
@Tarik
Um... thats not how syllogisms work. Lets say you're right and I'm dodging a question (totally didn't just answer it or anything and explain in full terms why you had a stupid question but anyways), even if I dodged every one of your questions that would tell you nothing about the actual syllogism. Attack a specific part of the syylogism for either being a non-sequitur, or for it being untrue, then you could totally claim its flawed. You being bad at questioning has nothing to do with its validity. Thing is, you already did that, and you entire point... wasn't even the best objection to the syllogism, nor even the point that is the most shifty... but it was a non-point in the first place, entirely pedantic.
-->
@Theweakeredge
even if I dodged every one of your questions that would tell you nothing about the actual syllogism
So the question regarding the or proposition wouldn’t tell me anything about the syllogism? Then why’d you bring it up?
-->
@Tarik
You were the one who said, "You keep on dodging questions, so your syllogisms must be false."..... you quite literally brought it up.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes but the or proposition that’s in question you brought up. Your refusal to answer the call is telling.
-->
@Tarik
Depends on what you want to know, which reference book you look at, and how specific you want to be.
-->
@zedvictor4
What I want to know is what source you got your information from? How specific is that for you?
-->
@Tarik
So let me do a Tarik and answer a question with a question.
If you wanted to bake a cake, would you use a dictionary as a recipe book?
-->
@zedvictor4
So let me do a Tarik and answer a question with a question.
What are you referring to specifically?
If you wanted to bake a cake, would you use a dictionary as a recipe book?
No, but I would use a dictionary if I wanted to know the meaning of the word cake which would be a more fair comparison considering the narrative is the meaning behind certain words, nice try though 😉.
-->
@Tarik
Answering questions with questions is something that you are good at.
Nonetheless, well done....You actually answered my question and gave the correct answer?
-->
@zedvictor4
Answering questions with questions is something that you are good at.
I’m sure same can be said about you but if your not going to refer me back to an example of doing this then you leave me no choice but to dismiss the argument because it’s clearly bogus.
Nonetheless, well done....You actually answered my question and gave the correct answer?
You ended that in a question mark, not sure why. Nonetheless answering the call is my forté, you still didn’t answer mine when I demanded a credible source but I guess that’s somewhat telling on its own huh 🤔?
-->
@Sum1hugme
Even in the military, a private telling an officer on a comm to bring in air support is a perfectly intelligible command.
Well stated.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I would argue that there is a distinction - you are correct that "objective" things are technically dependent on internal reasoning; however, if you were to go off the preponderance of evidence our senses are accurate more times than they are not. Therefore it would be reasonable to presume there to be a physical universe with things as we observe them.
AND YOU CAN'T GET AN "OUGHT" FROM AN "IS" (HUME'S GUILLOTINE).
-->
@3RU7AL
This has literally nothing to do with that.
-->
@Theweakeredge
This has literally nothing to do with that.
Even if you were magically able to identify an "objective fact", you'd still be absolutely nowhere near any hypothetical "objective morality".
-->
@3RU7AL
You realize I think morality is entirely subjective correct?
I think that objective facts - such as the fact that the earth exists - are separate from any sort of morality. Do you know my actual positions?
-->
@3RU7AL
Dude I have an entire forum called, "Moral Subjectivist AMA", right?
Do you actually think I subscribe to objective morality? Because that would say a lot more about you not knowing anything about me than anything else.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that objective facts - such as the fact that the earth exists - are separate from any sort of morality.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
-->
@3RU7AL
Wait, okay then I thought you were saying it as if I didn't believe it - seeing as we have been opposed on this thread, sorry then.
-->
@Tarik
I don't need to...Because you can't find a recipe in a dictionary.....You answered the question.
-->
@zedvictor4
That’s not the narrative and you know it, the narrative is the meanings of objective/subjective which you actually can find in a dictionary, so please support your definition otherwise have a nice day ✌🏾.
-->
@Tarik
Narrative not only occurs in dictionaries.
Dictionaries have a specific and limited function.
Nonetheless....Before humans were able to compile dictionaries, they firstly needed to be able to process data.
Therefore...Internal data management first, dictionaries second.
Tarik, perceives a dictionary and the data contained therein...He processes said data and formulates a response.
A wholly internal and personal process that results in a wholly personal and internally managed conclusion...The same process, irrespective of the quality or the validity of the output.....So, we can similarly formulate accompanying terminology such as subjective and objective, which can be applied to data output as a measure of it's known factuality and validity.....We can then transcribe to a dictionary, and this is the point at which Tarik is able to perceive.
This is also the point at which Tarik loses sight of the process, and cedes all responsibility for his output to the dictionary.
It wasn't my fault guv, it was the book what did it.
-->
@zedvictor4
The same process, irrespective of the quality or the validity of the output
Same process as what? I don’t see how you can dismiss validity as a factor in any sense, that’s essentially the answer.
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority. (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)
False.
P2. Human societies, generally speaking, dish out moral commands.
True.
P3. Human societies at times command morally egregious things as though they were moral (i.e the orders of Nazi Germany, etc.)
True.
P4. Therefore the innate "moralness" or "immoral-ness" of any particular moral command is not derived from strictly human authority.
Correct, because innate morality does not exist.
P5. Since this is the case all moral commands should be unintelligible
Even if we grant your premises, P5 does not follow from them. That human societies do issue unintelligible moral commands does not suggest they can't issue intelligible ones. Indeed the wording of P3 implies that human societies do, at times, issue morally intelligible commands. Also P1 only says that higher authority is necessary for intelligible commands, not that higher authorities necessarily create intelligible commands. That is, you state A -> B, but then try to use ~A -> ~B which is denying the antecedent fallacy.
P6. However there are intelligible moral commands
True.
P7. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings.
This argument contains superfluous statements. It would be sufficient to say:
P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority. (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)
P2. Intelligible moral commands exist
P3. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings.
It doesn't solve the problem of P1 being false, but it at least makes this a cleaner argument.
P8. Any issuer of moral commands must be capable of reasoning and using intellect.
False.
P9. A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists, and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word, a mind.
False.
P10. This issuer of commands cannot be subject to a higher authority, if said issuer were, for all we know, that authority's commands could contradict our intelligent issuer's commands, rendering them unintelligible, leaving us back to p5. But since there are intelligible commands, the one issuing them must be the highest authority.
False.
P11. A rational mind that is not subject to a greater authority and issues moral commands exists. All men call this Mind God.
False and false.
P12. Therefore God exists
Redundant. You establish the existence of god definitionally in P11.
-->
@Tarik
Pick a line and avoid the rest.
Another Tarik tactic.
Nonetheless.... Whether the output is factual, or supposition, the data management process is fundamentally the same, and the data is all from the same database.
Subjective and objective are internally derived classifications, we apply to internally processed data.
In simple terms.....Call it whatever you like.....But everything we say, we make up....Even if you read it previously in a dictionary, or any other text book.
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless.... Whether the output is factual, or supposition, the data management process is fundamentally the same, and the data is all from the same database.
You can’t manage facts and fallacies the same it’s fundamentally impossible because there’s a huge distinction between the two.
In simple terms.....Call it whatever you like.....But everything we say, we make up....Even if you read it previously in a dictionary, or any other text book.
Those terms are beyond just classifications they actually mean something.