I didn't say that a difference of opinion on morality is irrational.What I'm not understanding is why you've accepted that a different opinion on ice cream flavors isn't irrational but a different opinion on morality is.
Those things are morally good as they pertain to my moral standards. It would not be irrational for a sadist or a compulsive liar to disagree with me.The opinion was that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, and laziness was morally good. You found this to be irrational when taking into account your moral standards.
The Big Bang was just one example. We need to rely on an inference to the best explanation for many things. Not everything can be reproduced in a controlled environment, even though that might be ideal.God would have designed nature so there'd be a certain level of intellect exhibited in nature. That said, God is not "intertwined" in nature. A programmer is beyond the program he creates. He is not contained by it but he leaves signatures of his intelligence inside the program.The number of versions of something conceived beforehand does not make it more or less likely that the next version is any more or less likely to exist. It 100% depends on the defintion. This also overlooks the commonalities in many different variations of God. One of those commonalities for instance is an eternal consciousness, not Christianity or Islam.
When you think of the number "1" must you imagine it as an object, like an apple or an orange? When you think of "1,000,000" do you hold a million different objects in your mind? We understand the meaning of numbers without having objects associated with them.If math required corresponding objects for us to know of it then the works of Pythagoras or Euclid would've been impossible.
My objective is to have the most rational inference.
There may be other logically possible explanations for something but that doesn't mean it's the most rational explanation.
It's logically possible that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion.
There is no testable physical evidence of logic, meaning, math (& geometry),
...and moral truth propositions. Nor of conscious experiences, free will, etc.
So the arguments given for atheism so far are:* lack of evidence for theism* propensity for people to make up supernatural explanations
Please explain how your proposed Deism solves this "problem"?Maximizing physical harm to you is good though according to their chosen standard. In any case, there's no moral highground between the both of you.
Just simply labeling your personal moral-intuition "fact" (ontologically) doesn't solve any of your proposed dilemmas.There just needs to be a fact of the matter in order to resolve moral disagreements. Without moral realism, there's no fact of the matter. There's also no moral progress, no moral highground, no moral correctness or incorrectness, no instrinsic moral value attached to dispositions like compassion and cruelty, in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can never be more right than the other, and moral discussions themselves would be no different than reaching a consensus on a favorite color.
I'm sorry. I misread the second of your statements. I should have replied "those things are not morally good as they pertain to my moral standards". Is that where the confusion lies?In reference to the opinion that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice and laziness were morally good you said:"I, personally, would find those things irrational if I wanted to be considered a good person. However, I cannot speak for someone else"Now, in reference to the same opinion that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, are morally good are you saying this:"Those things are morally good as they pertain to my moral standards. It would not be irrational for a sadist or a compulsive liar to disagree with me."
In reference to the opinion that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice and laziness were morally good you said:"I, personally, would find those things irrational if I wanted to be considered a good person. However, I cannot speak for someone else"Now, in reference to the same opinion that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, are morally good are you saying this:"Those things are morally good as they pertain to my moral standards. It would not be irrational for a sadist or a compulsive liar to disagree with me."
So to be clear on your position, you believe that even if people hold opposite moral views than you, there is no rational difference between their opinion and yours.
Equally rationally warranted? I can't say that. That implies some kind of 3rd person objectivity. I can only say that my standards are rational to me and their standards are rational to them.And your moral opinion would be considered irrational relative to their moral standards. Your moral standards and their moral standards are equally rationally warranted. Correct?
I dont know what you mean when you say deism is functionally equivalent to atheism. You mean the world will continue as is with no supernatural intervention?
And your moral opinion would be considered irrational relative to their moral standards. Your moral standards and their moral standards are equally rationally warranted. Correct?
0 does not relate to an object because an object that doesn't exist will have nothing to relate to it.Math is useful, we both agree on that, but your theory that math is based on objects is where we disagree. We understand abstract concepts using our brain but this doesn't mean that abstract concepts are only contained within our brain. We understand reality using our brain too, this doesnt mean that reality is only contained within our brain.Transcendental argument for God's existence.
