Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

Two statements by Kairosfocus: (1.) Objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”) and is so warranted as credible (…) (2.) I exist, a perception of consciousness, is (…) objectively true. These statements cannot both be true.Only the subject has access to its conscious self-awareness. .
Yes they are both true. Conscious self-awareness is a common state of human being that manifest itself externally with face expressions/words/letters/books/actions. This is the way we ALL know that "conscious self-awareness" ("I exist") is objectively true BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE THAT REAL EXPERIENCE,and we confirm to each other EXTERNALLY that indeed is real . Same mechanism happens with the concepts of truth/moral law that we have internally as intuitions or clear thoughts and are learned/reinforced /confirmed externally . PS: :) We don't need to see the soul or conscious self-awareness to prove the existence of the moral law/objective truths,etc.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

PPS: Recall, on { } per von Neumann: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1, as 0 is an entity subject to collection {0,1} --> 2 . . . {0,1,2 . . . } --> omega, first transfinite ordinal Here we start with a unique abstractum, {}, accessible from all possible worlds by individuals capable of reflection and symbolic communication. From it we can construct N, including its implicitly transfinite no accessible final finite n in N property and the successor transfinites that open the door to transfinite hyperintegers. From N we can construct Z, Q,, R, C and then R* etc, with many properties, structures and results such as axiomatised systems, theorems etc. Where everything involved is an internal object of reflection, an experience, perception and conception of the agent as subject and is therefore subjective. However, as there is publicly accessible symbolisation, discussion on warrant, reason etc, we can compose a body of objective knowledge and hold the entities starting with the null set as objective. Objectivity, then, by direct and massively evident counter example, is not the logical antithesis of the subjective. It instead addresses our error proneness and builds on our perceptions, experiences, ideas etc, a structure of warrant, leading to objective in common knowledge. This then extends to other domains of thought, from seven year olds reflecting together to learned societies that have not yet surrendered to the anti-rationality that is rampant in our day. Including, on the actuality of objective truth and bodies of knowledge regarding right conduct, duty, virtue, honour etc.kairosfocus_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Origines, you are now setting up and knocking over a strawman in the face of a specific explanation that clarifies. Patently, I am not speaking of direct conscious access to the inner thoughts, perceptions and experiences of the other. With rare exceptions such as some conjoined twins, that does not happen. However, we are communicative creatures and can and do share our thoughts and ideas, so that two or more can access the same intangible or abstract idea or experience. I used the example of mathematical entities such as { } --> 0 . . . which is a unique distinct set, the null set, of which there is but one in all of reality [which we may refer to any number of times] . . . as a case in point as that whole discipline at core is about intangible abstract entities that are part of a discipline that is clearly objective, in fact is a major part of several professions. We can have objective knowledge of the intangible and abstract, through communicative sharing of what we individually experience or reflect on or perceive etc. I also specifically spoke to self-awareness, distinguishing the conscious experience from reflection on it including doubting, which on such reflection pivots on said consciousness. We each can experience consciousness and we can use language and logic to internally arrive at a self-evident -- as undeniable -- conclusion. As we are similar creatures and are communicative, there is no insuperable barrier to sharing the ideas and inferring to moral certainty that what we experience and reflect on is shared with others. Such constitutes publicly accessible reasoning that is cogent and conclusive. The same may readily be extended to conscience and reflections on right conduct, virtue, duty etc, leading to shared moral reasoning, mutual recognition of the warrant for first duties etc. And more, much of which is already above. KF PS: I probably should include some types of prophetic empathy accessible as a spiritual gift. That's real but rare enough.kairosfocus_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Lieutenant Commander Data @479
Origenes: For clarity, conscious self-awareness is NOT externally accessible & available to anyone.
Yes it is, you just made it available for us. These are your words .Right? Therefore Kairosfocus is right.
These are indeed my words. However, I hate it to break it to you, but my words and my conscious self-awareness are not identical things.Origenes_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Two statements by Kairosfocus:
(1.) Objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”) and is so warranted as credible (…)

(2.) I exist, a perception of consciousness, is (...) objectively true.
These statements cannot both be true. Only the subject has access to its conscious self-awareness. Conscious self-awareness is therefore not “externally accessible”. My conscious self-awareness is not available to anyone but me. But Kairosfocus wants both statements to be true nonetheless:
KF: Likewise, on I exist, we are conscious creatures and each of us accesses therefore consciousness.
Sure, but when you say “I exist” you are referring to your consciousness. No one but you has access to your consciousness .
We recognise the cognitive process of doubt etc and how it turns on said self aware existence.
Are you suggesting that “recognize” is something like “having external access”?
By extension we recognise the consciousness of others and generality of the result.
What is your point? Generalizing something has to with external access and/or availability to anyone?Origenes_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Ram Prove it. And you might try answering the questions I raised.
Let's remember your message:
People who believe in this eternal torment idea can’t explain why
I explained why. Then your next message:
Ram Prove it. And you might try answering the questions I raised.
:) I translate what Ram said "No,no I changed my mind first you have to prove existence of the hell to have the right to explain why. " Well...I proved you being a liar .
Origenes For clarity, conscious self-awareness is NOT externally accessible & available to anyone.
Yes it is, you just made it available for us. These are your words .Right? ;) Therefore Kairosfocus is right : OBJECTIVE TRUTH is about the degree of truth that is EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE (I.E. IN PRINCIPLE AVAILABLE TO “ANYONE”) and is so warranted as credible (…)Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Origenes, the warrant process is open so we can inspect. You will recall long since I used mathematical abstracta that are not physically located in any world, e.g. {}, which on von Neumann is foundation of N so numbers. The idea is contemplated by us and we are subjects, but the warrant process is in principle open and accessible to anyone with adequate background. I recall, the mathematical examples were dismissed as if they were irrelevant. That dismissal shows instead a missing of a key point. Likewise, on I exist, we are conscious creatures and each of us accesses therefore consciousness. We recognise the cognitive process of doubt etc and how it turns on said self aware existence. So, we have undeniability and so self evidence, a particularly strong degree of certain warrant. Thus, objective truth regarding a major experience of self-aware agency. By extension we recognise the consciousness of others and generality of the result. And so forth, I cannot but see that there is repeated making of mountains out of molehills here, reflecting that there is an entrenched ideology hostile to what is readily accessible to an average seven year old. That is a measure of just how far out of kilter our civilisation's intellectual culture is. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

@Seversky The meaning of basic words like fact and opinion, has never evolved. Someone thousands of years ago, in any language, used the exactsame logic as we do now, in stating a personal opinion that something is beautiful, and the exactsame logic in stating a fact, like that there is a camel out back.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Lieutenant Commander Data
You don’t know what is the meaning of objective /subjective. For example I can tell you that Kairosfocus comments contain ~90% objective ideas while yours contain 100% subjective ideas. Objective doesn’t come from “an object” but from objectivity(truth/unbiased) of the subject (...)
Querius:
Nicely stated!
Commander & Querius read and weep: Kairosfocus:
OBJECTIVE TRUTH is about the degree of truth that is EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE (I.E. IN PRINCIPLE AVAILABLE TO “ANYONE”) and is so warranted as credible (…)
For clarity, conscious self-awareness is NOT externally accessible & available to anyone.Origenes_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

LCD: This eternal torment is not an idea it’s a reality Prove it. And you might try answering the questions I raised. --Ramram_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Ram People who believe in this eternal torment idea can’t explain why that disposition is necessary to their God. What function does it fulfill? Does he enjoy watching them suffer? Is he unable to snuff them out? Or what?
:) This eternal torment is not an idea it's a reality that explain the fundamental importance of moral law. The moral law given to us is not a joke , our life is not a joke or a PC game that you can restart at will . Our actions and thoughts have REAL consequences.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

WJM “it doesn’t change the fact that if the actual people made the wrong choice they would suffer that fate” How can one suffer “that fate” since there can be no suffering if the people do not exist? How is it possible for a non existence to experience suffering , fate or anything else for that matter? Vividvividbleau_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

--Ramram_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Querius: Do people who understand that they might die of smoking all quit because they know how terrible cancer would be and that it will kill them? Dying of cancer is not the same as eternal torment. Yes, the story I related about the man with cancer is true. I don't know how reliable your testimony is, or the degree to which you probed his mind, so the anecdote is useless to me as evidence. My conversation with such a person would probably be different than yours. how would a person evaluate whether something were truly the Word of God? Beyond the scope of the thread or my interest here. One can point out the absurdities of a particular theology without getting into diversionary meta discussions. --Ramram_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

The meanings of words are not fixed for posterity and recorded in some Divine English Dictionary, they are living things which are invented or evolved within human cultures and drift and change over time, sometimes moving far beyond their original meanings. One change that caught my eye recently was the the usage of "flaunting the law." As I grew up, the meaning of "flaunt" was something like to display ostentatiously. On the other hand, if someone was displaying an open disregard for the law I would have said that person was "flouting the law". When I checked, however, it seems that both usages are now acceptable. I'm not sure if that has always been the case or it has changed because some people began using "flaunt" by mistake and it then became acceptable. The other usage that bugs me, although it shouldn't really, is when people write "could of" instead of "could've" which is the proper contraction for "could have".Seversky_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Querius: Then, regarding your assertion that my analogy is absurd and my brand of Christianity is absurd, I’d point out that generally, when someone resorts to abuse, it’s an indication that they’ve lost the argument, having no cogent rebuttal. Abuse? Words mean things, and sometimes we can tell the mindset of the person using them. You proffered an absurd analogy, and I would have to assume that you think it has some rational force. From my view it appears you made a mistake not realizing your analogy actually supports WJM's point. That is not any sort of broad "attack" on you. We all make mistakes. "You're an idiot and everything you say is stupid" is an example of an actual personal attack. Sidebar pro tip: analogies are useful to explain concepts but they are not very persuasive as rhetorical devices. --Ramram_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Ram @419, Yes, sometimes a person has a misconception or some false ideas. More often, there's a moral issue that doesn't involve a lack of knowledge, but simply rationalization and blaming the Creator for making them. Yes, the story I related about the man with cancer is true. I think he was a smoker. Do people who understand that they might die of smoking all quit because they know how terrible cancer would be and that it will kill them?
Black holes aren’t bottomless pits. Their popular name is a bit of a misnomer.
According to our current understanding, a black hole is a massive deformation of spacetime and the comparison of a gravitational energy well that approaches a point mass to a bottomless pit isn’t that far off. Particles falling into a black hole accelerate to the speed of light, and from an observer’s perspective, time would slow down to become eternal while the particle would be absorbed in a tiny fraction of a second. There’s some interesting discussion here, including an assertion that the singularity is less of a place in space than a moment in time. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-long-does-it-take-to-fall-into-a-black-hole.1000235/
Querius: . . . the revealed Word of God is the most reliable source.
Only if one is convinced “it” is indeed revealed Word of God. (There are several configurations of “the Bible.” The Jews have theirs, Catholics have theirs, Protestants have theirs, etc. Parts of the Bibles could be true, and other parts not true. Others think the Quran or Book of Mormon is the most reliable source. Etc.)
Yes. And if so, the revealed Word of God exists independently of various beliefs about it. So, how would a person evaluate whether something were truly the Word of God? Can you think of any criteria? -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

@Querius, yes in scripture, which is the word of God, there is also a distinction between subjective and objective. Scripture uses the same logic as common discourse does, obviously. Who do you think you are that you can just fantasize how subjectivity and objectivity works, and disregard the rules used with subjective statement and objective statements, in scripture, as well as in common discourse? This is all sooooo disgusting, to see one after another just fantasize definitions for subjectivity and objectivity. What a lot of arrogance to do that.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Lieutenant Commander Data @464, Nicely stated! Imagining God's statements, I don't think one can apply objective and subjective as categories since all of God's statements are true. Some of our statements will certainly be subjective based on our limits of knowledge, but subjectivity vanishes in the light of God's truth. Even a child's statement such as, "I like ice cream," can be problematic if the child making the statement thinks the yogurt they're eating is ice cream (a friend of ours always called the yogurt she gave to her young son, "ice cream"). Nice trick. -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @427,
Querius @418: Translation: You disagree with me, so you must be mentally deficient.
Nope. Not even close. When KF insists that I mean something other than what I directly tell him I mean literally dozens of times when it comes to my mental reality theory. He doesn’t get to disagree with me about what my mental reality theory actually states; he doesn’t get to insist that the consequences of MRT are what his reality paradigm dictates bases on the premises, ontology and epistemology of his perspective on reality. It is exactly like this: I’m trying to explain the game of football, and KF keeps telling me that running with the football without dribbling it is a violation of the rules of his game – basketball.
No, you’re not trying to explain the rules of football, but rather your rules of football.
Origenes’ is a type of argument from ignorance as might be restated as, “I can easily design plants and animals far better than the ones in the world today.
I assume you meant me and not Origenes. You seem to be misunderstanding my argument and focusing on something that allows you to dismiss it rather than engage the point logically. LIke KF using an irrelevant point – whether or not I’m “credible” – to avoid engaging the logic of the questions I pose. Let me restate it: GIVEN the Christian God and this creation, why imbue all the hell-bound people with actual self-aware consciousness that would result in them suffering eternal torment? Can God not just use NPC automatons to fulfill those roles so that no actual self-aware conscious entity suffers eternal torment? It doesn’t remove free will from any actual person; it doesn’t change the fact that if the actual people made the wrong choice they would suffer that fate. The only thing it logically, necessarily changes is that when the outcome comes to pass, nobody is experiencing eternal suffering.
Yes, I misattributed your reference to Burr--sorry. My point is relevant using a kal v'chomer argument. If my criticism was applicable to the arrogance of someone claiming to be able to design a better substitute for the Krebs Cycle, how much more applicable is it to someone claiming they could have done a better job at creating and managing entities with free will than the God who created the universe?
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. -Isaiah 55:8-11 (NIV)
-QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Origenes KF claims that the term objectivity has only to do with the amount of warrant; irrespective where it comes from. He goes on to claim that the most subjective statement ever *”I exist”* is an “objective truth.”
Origenes are you Mohammadnursyamsu or/and WJM ?because you copy some of the insane ideas from these accounts. You don't know what is the meaning of objective /subjective. For example I can tell you that Kairosfocus comments contain ~90% objective ideas while yours contain 100% subjective ideas. Objective doesn't come from "an object" but from objectivity(truth/unbiased) of the subject while subjective come from the subjectivity(personal opinion/biased judgement) of the subject. Only a subject(as individual mind ) can be objective/subjective.
claim that the most subjective statement ever *”I exist”* is an “objective truth.”
"I exist" is not an subjective statement (opinion/preference/biased view) is an objective(true) statement .Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

460 William J Murray @460,
Querius said: Do you mean their duty to God or do you mean their duty to a human institution? I meant what I said.
Yes, I assume you did. And I also meant what I said. -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Ram @420,
Querius: William J Murray and Origenes are firemen on a ladder… You’re making WJM’s point. Your analogy is indeed absurd, which is exactly WJM’s point: your brand of Christian theology is absurd. You analogy shows exactly why it’s absurd, and that you acknowledge that it is.
No, I’m not. Originally, I was going to put them in the apartment arguing with their rescuers, but I thought it might be interesting to have them think how frustrating it would be for them as the firemen. Then, regarding your assertion that my analogy is absurd and my brand of Christianity is absurd, I’d point out that generally, when someone resorts to abuse, it’s an indication that they’ve lost the argument, having no cogent rebuttal. -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @413,
I was just out having a smoke on my porch and I had an epiphany about this.
You seem to start your thoughts presupposing the non-existence of God and the human synthesis of some sort of ultimate being. Perhaps the next time you go out for a smoke, start with the presumption of that the Judeo-Christian God really does exist: - Sentient, massive intelligence, highly creative, not a complete idiot with a white beard - Perfectly righteous, just, and loving, not evil - Desiring human and other beings with free will, limited intelligence and knowledge, and who are not stimulus-response robots Then consider the different paths that God might have taken. For example, how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will? -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Querius said:
Do you mean their duty to God or do you mean their duty to a human institution?
I meant what I said.William J Murray_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

435 Mohammadnursyamsu @435,
@KF, ORIGENES, WJM, QUERIUS, BA77 It is not allowed to just imagine the definition of subjectivity and objectivity.
So does God also distinguish between objective truth and subjective truth for Himself? Can you support your answer? -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @401,
Would you still do your duty to God if the consequence of doing your duty means you will spend eternity being tormented in hell, and those who do not do their duty get eternal life in heaven?
Do you mean their duty to God or do you mean their duty to a human institution? That makes all the difference! - If I’m in the military and my commanding officer orders me to commit a crime, it might be my “duty” to follow orders, but I cannot be obligated to violate my conscience or my faith.
When a pair of mules blocked a bridge during the Sicily offensive in 1943, halting his armoured convoy and making it vulnerable to enemy fire, Patton personally shot the animals and ordered them pushed off the bridge. Two of Patton’s men were tried in connection with the killing of dozens of Italian and German prisoners of war in southern Sicily on July 14, 1943, which came to be known as the Biscari Massacre. Both claimed that they were following orders not to take prisoners that Patton himself had set forth in a fiery speech to their division a month earlier. Patton denied responsibility, and he was exonerated of any crime. - Britannica
- For God to make it the duty of someone to do something that He would later punish them for is not possible. The scriptures tell us that there are things that it’s impossible for God to do, such as lie. Incidentally, the Apostle Paul stated the following:
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race . . . – Romans 9:3 (NIV)
-QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Origenes @385,
So, a murderer doesn’t do jail time at all, but in his place an innocent person spends his life in jail. And that satisfies justice in your book?
I need to clarify something about my subsequent “yes” answer @397. In context, I assumed we were still talking about substitutionary atonement. However, without voluntary consent, the innocent person you mentioned is indeed subject to a miscarriage of justice as is the guilty party. Furthermore, I should also specify that substitutionary atonement requires repentance for it to be effective. Also note that in our current laws, there are many examples of substitutionary justice. For example, lawsuits involving injury or even wrongful death usually involve monetary compensation. For example, if someone slips and breaks their leg on your property, you will be liable for damages, perhaps even punitive damages. But the law doesn’t require that your leg be likewise broken, right? -QQuerius_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

In post @434 I have explained why Kairosfocus does not want 'objective truth' to mean knowledge which depends on what is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”), as opposed to knowledge about things only accessible to the subject. KF claims that the term objectivity has only to do with the amount of warrant; irrespective where it comes from. He goes on to claim that the most subjective statement ever *"I exist"* is an "objective truth."
KF @436: ... it is warrant (which comes in many ways and degrees) that confers a corresponding degree of objectivity (...)
The reader might like to know that what Kairosfocus is saying in this thread contrasts sharply with the things he usually says:
Kairosfocus: OBJECTIVE TRUTH is about the degree of truth that is EXTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE (I.E. IN PRINCIPLE AVAILABLE TO "ANYONE") and is so warranted as credible (...)
- source -Origenes_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus PS: beauty is intelligible i/l/o principles of aesthetics, which still work despite the relativist, subjectivist, emotivist fashions of the day and imposition of cynically ugly architecture and pieces on us by those with power.
:) Also in the light of principles of eastethics(and other) the most beautiful thing in the world is the truth. The truth likes to live and shine in humble people . I don't know if you noticed but your respectful talk with infatuated people have a strange effect on them : they become MORE infatuated. ;) It's like you hit a hive with a stick.Sandy_{November 6, 2021
November
11
Nov
6
06
2021
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply