The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@philokalia said
That is a deflection, FMF!

I pointed out that you believe in absolutely nothing; there is no ultimate right or wrong. There are only moral compasses that we construct to have expedient results. This is what you believe.

You then go on to talk about how there is no God (basically).

Why are you quoting me, then? It isn't anything that I was talking about. I was talking about you.

Are you ashamed to talk of your views on this?

"Ashamed"? I am open and explicit about my views. I do not 'believe in nothing'. One of the things I believe is this: your belief that there is an ultimate right or wrong - rooted in supernatural phenomena and beings - is just as subjective as subjective as my sense of right and wrong and we have both simply absorbed ideas and opinions from our human environment.

@fmf said
"Ashamed"? I am open and explicit about my views. I do not 'believe in nothing'. One of the things I believe is this: your belief that there is an ultimate right or wrong - rooted in supernatural phenomena and beings - is just as subjective as subjective as my sense of right and wrong and we have both simply absorbed ideas and opinions from our human environment.

But since you have seen past this... You can freely say that you believe in total subjectivity, and that there is no right or wrong beyond what individuals decide for themselves.

You are a radical moral relativist and, in the sense that Fr. Seraphim Rose uses it, a nihilist.

You are our British-Indonesian Nihilist.

@philokalia said
But since you have seen past this... You can freely say that you believe in total subjectivity, and that there is no right or wrong beyond what individuals decide for themselves.

I haven't said this. Indeed, I have explicitly talked about how the sense of right and wrong we are inculcated with goes way beyond what individuals decide for themselves. What individuals decide for themselves is how to use the moral compass to make their decisions and take actions in light of that sense of right and wrong that they have been inculcated with and the formation of which goes way beyond what those individuals decide for themselves.

@philokalia said
You are a radical moral relativist and, in the sense that Fr. Seraphim Rose uses it, a nihilist.

Well, I'm not superstitious and I am not religious, if that's what you're getting at.

@fmf said
I haven't said this. Indeed, I have explicitly talked about how the sense of right and wrong we are inculcated with goes way beyond what individuals decide for themselves. What individuals decide for themselves is how to use the moral compass to make their decisions and take actions in light of that sense of right and wrong that they have been inculcated with and the formation of which goes way beyond what those individuals decide for themselves.

Right -- historically, it's EXTREMELY common for groups to decide that it is acceptable to treat women as cattle or to commit genocide.

It's just a natural part of the human moral compass.

is it right..? Is it wrong..?

In your world, who is to say? It's just a thing that happens.

@fmf said
Well, I'm not superstitious and I am not religious, if that's what you're getting at.

You do not believe in right and wrong, either. And I think that is an important distinction. You do not believe that there really is a moral foundation to anything. We are just individuals making choices, and groups making choices, and there isn't a basis for appraising whether or not they are wrong.

This is nihilistic.

Maybe you are unhappy about this, but it seems to be true.

It seems you deleted two posts that were probably grappling with this very problem -- emotional outbursts or aborted rationalizations, who knows, but I would be curious to see.

@philokalia said
Right -- historically, it's EXTREMELY common for groups to decide that it is acceptable to treat women as cattle or to commit genocide.

It's just a natural part of the human moral compass.

is it right..? Is it wrong..?

In your world, who is to say? It's just a thing that happens.

I think those things are wrong. So do you ~ perhaps ~ [I can't be sure because you subscribe to ancient Hebrew mythology ~ meaning you have the 'my god figure ordered it thus, so it's moral, who are you question god' discourse-cop-out]. We both arrive at our stances because of the moral compasses we have been inculcated with. That you have some supposedly supernatural dimension to your analysis and conviction does not replace your subjectivity with objectivity.

@philokalia said
You do not believe in right and wrong, either.

I do believe in "right and wrong".

@philokalia said
We are just individuals making choices, and groups making choices, and there isn't a basis for appraising whether or not they are wrong.

This is correct. And many people believe a supernatural being provides a moral foundation to everything ~ countless thousands of religions stretching back thousands of years. It is your prerogative to rely on or reference the tenents of whichever one you happen to believe in. But it's still just a set of cultural norms and personal experiences that you have synthesized and internalized into a subjective moral compass.

@philokalia said
This is nihilistic.

I am not concerned with what label you attach to it. sonship recently attached the label "eating faeces" and "spreading germs" to my ideas. I am simply sharing my perspective. Labels are useful up to a point, but you brandishing the label "nihilistic" is not a "Moral Argument for God's Existence".

@philokalia said
It seems you deleted two posts that were probably grappling with this very problem -- emotional outbursts or aborted rationalizations, who knows, but I would be curious to see.

I accidentally responded ~ i.e. repeated by responses ~ to two sonship posts on pages 32 and 33 which I thought he had reposed 'this morning' - having somehow ended up on the wrong page in a different open browser tab. So I deleted them. What "emotional outbursts"? "Grappling"? "Aborted rationalizations"? You seem to be resorting to rhetorical gimmicks.

@fmf said
I think those things are wrong. So do you ~ perhaps ~ [I can't be sure because you subscribe to ancient Hebrew mythology ~ meaning you have the 'my god figure ordered it thus, so it's moral, who are you question god' discourse-cop-out]. We both arrive at our stances because of the moral compasses we have been inculcated with. That you have some supposedly supernatural dimension to your analysis and conviction does not replace your subjectivity with objectivity.

But you clearly see beyond the veil of ignorance, though, right?

Because you see beyond your limited, relativist position, you shouldn't cling to the moral norms you have, but you should act as a bridge between the various relativist positions, right?

Like, instead of explaining that you disapprove of this like all of your contemporary fellow Britons, why aren't you talking about how these differences don't really matter in the end..?

Because, ultimately, the reasons you think it wrong are simply reasons given to you by your culture or your innate preferences. There is no real objective reason that would indicate it is necessarily superior.

@fmf said
I accidentally responded ~ i.e. repeated by responses ~ to two sonship posts on pages 32 and 33 which I thought he had reposed 'this morning' - having somehow ended up on the wrong page in a different open browser tab. So I deleted them. What "emotional outbursts"? "Grappling"? "Aborted rationalizations"? You seem to be resorting to rhetorical gimmicks.

I think that's just a convenient excuse. I think you were mad. I think you are actually quite prickly about these things.

You made a mistake -- and you deleted your mistakes.

It's OK, though: no judgment. Nobody is perfect. Sometimes we all get angry and hostile.