Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[Charles]

Charles and you have not offered a better ground or source for universal ethics than God. So in reality you are logically mired in moral relativism, which means that your protests against any act of God is as meaningless and without warrant as any other moral opinion that you may happen hold. Great stuff, that...

The only defence is an attack? You agree that your reasoning is so bad that you can only hope that others can only come up with something even worse. I am certainly not a relativist. If I was I could perhaps agree with your lack of a true foundation.

And again you start talking as if we know god exists. But as already pointed out that is just a claim you make.

[seer]

The only defence is an attack? You agree that your reasoning is so bad that you can only hope that others can only come up with something even worse. I am certainly not a relativist. If I was I could perhaps agree with your lack of a true foundation.

Of course rationally you are a relativist, even if you won't admit it, there is nothing else Charles - unless you can demonstrate that a mind independent, universal set of moral values exist. Which as we have so painfully seen - you can't. You can not take the ethical high ground because you have no such ground.

And again you start talking as if we know god exists. But as already pointed out that is just a claim you make.

What does your unbelief have to do with the reality of God's existence? In other words your rejection of God is as meaningless and without warrant as your uniformed moral opinion.

[Charles]

Of course rationally you are a relativist, even if you won't admit it, there is nothing else Charles - unless you can demonstrate that a mind independent, universal set of moral values exist. Which as we have so painfully seen - you can't. You can not take the ethical high ground because you have no such ground.



What does your unbelief have to do with the reality of God's existence? In other words your rejection of God is as meaningless and without warrant as your uniformed moral opinion.

Rationaly any discussion of ethics is unfounded if relativism is true. I have pointed to that numerous times and given a rather lengthy line of reasoning for that. As I have for universal moral values. The fact that you do not agree makes no difference to me. Nor does it make them less universal.

My unbelief is based on the fact that you have got nothing to prove the existence of god. So it is not just a personal "belief" or opinion. I am just pointing to the fact that the god you have a subjective belief in and in which you found your subjective moral values is one you also need to have subjective faith in and is not one that can be proven to exist. So my unbelief has the same thing to do with the existence of your god as your unbelief in Allah has to do with his existence. What you have got is subjective all the way and even within that subjective box it is circular so it is very, very, very difficult to see it having any appeal.

[JimL]

That is just silly Jim, you really have no ground to call anything evil, there is no evil. Just personal or collective preferences.

Thats why I said "what most humans would find to be evil." There is no such thing as evil in and of itself, but relative to human beings most people, if they actually looked into it, would consider the Hebrew/christian god to be an evil tyrant.

[Charles]

That is just silly Jim, you really have no ground to call anything evil, there is no evil. Just personal or collective preferences.

That is one of the reasons why your idea that god is good is an empty claim. You do not really believe in the existence of good.

[seer]

Rationaly any discussion of ethics is unfounded if relativism is true. I have pointed to that numerous times and given a rather lengthy line of reasoning for that. As I have for universal moral values. The fact that you do not agree makes no difference to me. Nor does it make them less universal.

Charles, I agree that any ethical reasoning apart from universal moral truths is absurd. That is why your position is absurd since you never did or could demonstrate that such truths exist, all you really did was point to the absurdity of it all - that is not an argument for mind independent moral truths, it is an argument for the absurd.

My unbelief is based on the fact that you have got nothing to prove the existence of god. So it is not just a personal "belief" or opinion. I am just pointing to the fact that the god you have a subjective belief in and in which you found your subjective moral values is one you also need to have subjective faith in and is not one that can be proven to exist. So my unbelief has the same thing to do with the existence of your god as your unbelief in Allah has to do with his existence. What you have got is subjective all the way and even within that subjective box it is circular so it is very, very, very difficult to see it having any appeal.

Right and as we have seen there are a number of things that you to take by faith, based on circular reasoning, apart from deductive justification. Do we have to go through all that again or are you going to stop playing the hypocrite?

[Charles]

Charles, I agree that any ethical reasoning apart from universal moral truths is absurd. That is why your position is absurd since you never did or could demonstrate that such truths exist, all you really did was point to the absurdity of it all - that is not an argument for mind independent moral truths, it is an argument for the absurd.




Right and as we have seen there are a number of things that you to take by faith, based on circular reasoning, apart from deductive justification. Do we have to go through all that again or are you going to stop playing the hypocrite?

A hypocrite? For not wanting to take your subjective unprovable circular claims to be a moral truth? You can disagree with my view but at least it is one that you can actually evaluate and not just a circular statement about what I prefer. It seems to me you still have not realized that your claims that good does not exist is as undermining to the idea of God as to morals. But perhaps that is not a worry when using circular logics and basing morals on unprovable foundations?

[seer]

Thats why I said "what most humans would find to be evil." There is no such thing as evil in and of itself, but relative to human beings most people, if they actually looked into it, would consider the Hebrew/christian god to be an evil tyrant.

So Jim when you call something evil it really isn't evil since there is no such thing as evil! Got it...

[seer]

A hypocrite? For not wanting to take your subjective unprovable circular claims to be a moral truth?

But you already do take unprovable circular claims to be true. Do we really have go through this again? Like what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. And Charles I have asked you time and time again to offer a non-circular definition of "good" and at every turn you refused to do so. The reason you don't is because you know very well that your definition will rely on circular reasoning. If not present here, now.

[Charles]

I have presented my view much more detailed than you have. And as regards assumptions need I remind you that it follows from your own line of reasoning that you do not even know whether you have got it or not? And name one instance where you have accepted circular logic leading to a conclusion you did not already agree with. And, no, sorry, my reasoning is not circular.

[Charles]

I have presented my view much more detailed than you have. And as regards assumptions need I remind you that it follows from your own line of reasoning that you do not even know whether you have got it or not? And name one instance where you have accepted circular logic leading to a conclusion you did not already agree with. And, no, sorry, my reasoning is not circular.

Perhaps, seer, you should try to give a detailed presentation of your view not depending on what others think but rather presenting it as a line of reasong in itself not in your typical you cannot do better form. Not attacking everyone but rather giving answers. If you have got anything....

[seer]

I have presented my view much more detailed than you have. And as regards assumptions need I remind you that it follows from your own line of reasoning that you do not even know whether you have got it or not? And name one instance where you have accepted circular logic leading to a conclusion you did not already agree with. And, no, sorry, my reasoning is not circular.

Then Charles give definition of good and why it is good and I will demonstrate why it is circular.

[Charles]

You know where I presented my view and are yet to prove it circular. And all the other points? Trying to escape talking about your view? Let us see a detailed account if you can give one.

[seer]

You know where I presented my view and are yet to prove it circular. And all the other points? Trying to escape talking about your view? Let us see a detailed account if you can give one.

Charles, you don't get to avoid the question by asking me one. You know you can not present a definition of good that is non-circular, so you will do anything to push the question off. And in our debate I did show time and time again when you relied on unprovable assumptions. But you can clear it all up here - just present a definition of good and why it is good. Try being honest.

[JimL]

So Jim when you call something evil it really isn't evil since there is no such thing as evil! Got it...

Do unto others, as you would have done to you. Evil is whatever is harmful to human beings. Why? Because whatever is harmful to human beings is not good for human beings. You already know that, because you live it every day. You believe murder is evil, correct? But you have no problem with the murdering of animals for food, right. How come? Because they're not human beings.