21 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThe same? You're view is tainted by your belief. The atheists and agnostics believe that the morals are a product of our society and history, and they think it's crazy to assign some God as being responsible.
So the product proves the process? Uhh...
Christians claim God has set objective right and wrong in our hearts. That's my claim and it makes a lot more sense than individuals coincidentally coming upon the same 'objective' moral laws.
Counterpoint. Prove that morals are not instinctually brought about by our society and evolution.
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMain Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Your notion of objective is mistaken, as is your understanding of how it contrasts with subjective.
If I claim "2 + 2 = 5", I have made an objective claim.
If I claim "2 + 2 is equal to a big number", I have made a subjective claim.
Similarly, each man can assert an objective moral law. The inconsistency between men's laws does not make ...[text shortened]... o the same conclusion about whether he has violated that law.
Consult a dictionary.
Dr. S
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers <objective reality>
2 : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual <an objective symptom of disease> <caused objective or subjective clinical improvement or both —Journal of the American Medical Association> —compare SUBJECTIVE 2b —ob·jec·tive·ly adverb
2+2=5 isn't perceptible to me. Consult a dictionary.
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by Darfius"2+2=5" is an abstact shorthand expression that encapsulates an infinitude of concrete claims that lie within the realm of human perception.
2+2=5 isn't perceptible to me. Consult a dictionary.
If you put two apples on a table, and I put two more apples on the table, will we have 5?
After perfoming this experiment will we all be able to agree on the truth of the claim using our human perception?
If you put two Bibles on a table, and I put two more Bibles on the table, will we have 5?
After perfoming this experiment will we all be able to agree on the truth of the claim using our human perception?
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYour analogies are irrelevant. 2+2=5 is not percebtible to me. I don't perceive in falsehoods.
"2+2=5" is an abstact shorthand expression that encapsulates an infinitude of concrete claims that lie within the realm of human perception.
If you put two apples on a table, and I put two more apples on the table, will we have 5?
After perfoming this experiment will we all be able to agree on the truth of the claim using our human perception? ...[text shortened]... experiment will we all be able to agree on the truth of the claim using our human perception?
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by NyxieOf course I can't prove that morals don't come about from society. They do. My question is whether OBJECTIVE moral values come from society.
The same? You're view is tainted by your belief. The atheists and agnostics believe that the morals are a product of our society and history, and they think it's crazy to assign some God as being responsible.
Counterpoint. Prove that morals are not instinctually brought about by our society and evolution.
In other words, is the cannibalism going on in the Congo right now wrong? Why or why not?
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't live in the congo, you tell me why it's wrong for them to live as they do. And then tell me why it is acceptle to them, as their society seems to have evolved that way.
Of course I can't prove that morals don't come about from society. They do. My question is whether OBJECTIVE moral values come from society.
In other words, is the cannibalism going on in the Congo right now wrong? Why or why not?
I would even venture to say that their gods are ok with these actions. So their actions and morality have evolved with their society.
21 Mar 05
1 edit
Only truth leads to an objective conclusion. Therefore, objective morality can only exist when we have one universal framework under which all enties have "faith". The existence of God is no more relevant to moral objectivity than the existence of a Grand Unified Equation, from which morality can be derived.