Morality and Belief in God

[Angel]

... We are talking about the qualifier "good" that you falsely claim is an objective.
...

This is incorrect as a representation of my claim. As I said, you seem to be confused. This post of yours may point up the source of your confusion -- you don't know what my claim is. I am not making any claim about a word. I'm making a claim about the meaning of certain sentences in which that word occurs. Please get this straight.

 

[AGENT J]

My watch analogy did not fail. Only in your subjective biased opinion did it fail.

it 100% failed and was proved factually wrong by multiple posters, definitions and examples. NOTHING you just posted changes that fact. Just more of your feelings that you want others to buy but facts dont allow us to put any logical stock in your failed and proven wrong claims.

 

[Angel]

Those aren't objective evaluations. And Ted Williams was a great hitter.

No it is a subjective claim he is objectively an above average hitter but the term "good" is subjective
Your problem is you are trying to make the word "good" mean whatever you want at any given time and it doesn't have to mean that to another person. ie it is subjective.
You did the same with your failed broken watch analogy.

Here's another one for you gents. Decoct the criteria and we'll apply them together.
If you just wish to repeat the uninformed contrarian counterclaim, please waste someone else's time.
Thank you.

 

[Quag]

If you don't know what these words mean, I refuse to carry on a dialogue with a contrarian.



Reproduce the criteria laid out in this video and let's see if "Ted Williams was a good hitter" is objective or subjective.
My watch analogy did not fail. Only in your subjective biased opinion did it fail.

Already told you I cant see videos you post
but Good is subjective because it means different things to different people. In this case you mean he has a better batting average than many other players but that doesn't mean others will accept that as the criteria for "good"
The failure is entirely on you because you think that "good" is the same for everyone at all times It isn't because it is a subecjtive term

 

[Quag]

This is incorrect as a representation of my claim. As I said, you seem to be confused. This post of yours may point up the source of your confusion -- you don't know what my claim is. I am not making any claim about a word. I'm making a claim about the meaning of certain sentences in which that word occurs. Please get this straight.

You are claiming that a Volvo is a "good" car is objectively true this is false. You then try the strawmen by claiming that I am arguing a Volvo isn't a car
This is also false
I am stating that the term Good is subjective and all you have done so far is use it subjectively then falsely claimed it is objective

 

[Quag]

Here's another one for you gents. Decoct the criteria and we'll apply them together.
If you just wish to repeat the uninformed contrarian counterclaim, please waste someone else's time.
Thank you.

Again cant watch your videos, try making an actual argument instead of using videos top speak for you.

The only uninformed person here is you repeatedly using the term Good subjectively then falsely claiming it is objective.

Good/Bad are subjective terms as all of your examples have shown

 

[Quag]

it 100% failed and was proved factually wrong by multiple posters, definitions and examples. NOTHING you just posted changes that fact. Just more of your feelings that you want others to buy but facts dont allow us to put any logical stock in your failed and proven wrong claims.

He does like to post examples of the word good being subjective then claiming it is objective.

 

[gfm7175]

Ahh Ok I think see where you are going.
Yes and no
Yes it exists in the mind
For lack of a better term the logic behind logic will remain if we all of humanity dies tomorrow and a new species becomes as intellectually evolved as we are. Same with mathematics the logic behind 1+1=2 and 1+1+1=3 then 1+2=3 will always remain true but if no one exists or all humanity loses their memory. No one would know it and it would have to be relearned. It could look differently but the logic will be the same
eg Q#Q;d and Q#d;c then Q#Q#Q;c

So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not? It doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...

 

[AGENT J]

He does like to post examples of the word good being subjective then claiming it is objective.

Its been every "argument" he has presented

 

[Quag]

So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not?

Not necessarily, logic requires a mind, human or otherwise but that doesn't mean it exists or doesn't exist without a mind. So I guess you could say it can exist without humanity as long as there is minds capable of complex thought.

It doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...

Never claimed it existed with inanimate objects but you are kind of making my argument above. Logic requires the capacity for thought

 

[Angel]

Those aren't objective evaluations. And Ted Williams was a great hitter.

Again cant watch your videos, try making an actual argument instead of using videos top speak for you.

The only uninformed person here is you repeatedly using the term Good subjectively then falsely claiming it is objective.

Good/Bad are subjective terms as all of your examples have shown

I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.

1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.

SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,

All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.

Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.

 

[Angel]

You are claiming that a Volvo is a "good" car is objectively true this is false. You then try the strawmen by claiming that I am arguing a Volvo isn't a car
This is also false
I am stating that the term Good is subjective and all you have done so far is use it subjectively then falsely claimed it is objective

Show me where I represented your view as "arguing that a Volvo isn't a car."

Such a straw man as you attribute to me does not exist. Please admit as much. Thank you.

 

[gfm7175]

Not necessarily, logic requires a mind, human or otherwise but that doesn't mean it exists or doesn't exist without a mind. So I guess you could say it can exist without humanity as long as there is minds capable of complex thought.


Never claimed it existed with inanimate objects but you are kind of making my argument above. Logic requires the capacity for thought

If it requires a mind to exist, and it exists outside of human existence....

Actually, I think my case is being made here... I think I'm done with the contrarian dance though, especially given Angel's post #461 which couldn't make this discussion any clearer. You get stuck on the fact that a word happens to have subjective application, and you falsely assume that nothing objective can come out of a subjective word.

 

[gfm7175]

I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.

1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.

SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,

All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.

Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.

And with your "good hitter" example, even though one might think that, for example, home runs are a better measurement for good hitters than hit average, that doesn't mean that the answer is subjective... it just means that different measurement methods lead to different objective results... it's why, in my mind, moral epistemology should come secondary to moral ontology.

 

[AGENT J]

I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.

1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.

SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,

All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.

Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.

no they do not they are just your subjective opinion that you false CLAIM do but its been proven they dont LMAO
No mater how many times you repeat yourself, stomp your feet, and try to sell it theres no facts that support your proven wrong claims

fact remains all your claims were subjective. When you can prove otherwise with FACTS let us know, thanks!

 

[Angel]

He does like to post examples of the word good being subjective then claiming it is objective.

Broccoli is good for you.

Broccoli tastes good.


Here we have the word "good" used in two sentences making claims about broccoli.

Questions to you, Quag:

Are both of these claims subjective?

or

Is one of these claims objective?​

 

[devildavid]

"Ted Williams was a good hitter" is an objective evaluation of Williams as a hitter based on career stats including, among other data, 2654 hits in 7706 at-bats for a .344 batting average.
This is an objective evaluation of the functional concept "hitter" in the context of the professional sport of baseball. Its contradiction is false on the facts.

You are still wrong. Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively" speaking. And hitting is about much more than batting average. In fact, your objective criteria are really subjective, because of this fact. There is no single measure of what makes something good, and it becomes a subjective preference. You can only objectively rank hitters by numerical statistics. You can only assign subjective values to those numbers in order to call one hitter good, better or best. The numbers aren't the only criteria. Objectively, I could say most hitters aren't good if they make outs more than half of the time they hit.

 

[devildavid]

I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.

1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.

SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,

All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.

Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.

Calling a car good is not objective. Calling a car a Volvo is objective. Calling a car red colored is objective. Calling a car a 4 cylinder is objective. See the difference?

 

[Angel]

You are still wrong. Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively" speaking. And hitting is about much more than batting average. In fact, your objective criteria are really subjective, because of this fact. There is no single measure of what makes something good, and it becomes a subjective preference. You can only objectively rank hitters by numerical statistics. You can only assign subjective values to those numbers in order to call one hitter good, better or best. The numbers aren't the only criteria. Objectively, I could say most hitters aren't good if they make outs more than half of the time they hit.

If "Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively' speaking," then he was, pari passu, a good hitter objectively speaking. Your logic in this post is neither great nor good.
Why don't you start by answering the question posed in #466. This will help you understand the issue.

 

[devildavid]

Broccoli is good for you.

Broccoli tastes good.


Here we have the word "good" used in two sentences making claims about broccoli.

Questions to you, Quag:

Are both of these claims subjective?

or

Is one of these claims objective?​

Subjective. If you don't like the taste of broccoli is is neither. It could make you vomit. Is that good for you?

 

[AGENT J]

Broccoli is good for you.

Broccoli tastes good.


Here we have the word "good" used in two sentences making claims about broccoli.

Questions to you, Quag:

Are both of these claims subjective?

or

Is one of these claims objective?​

still both subjective and your watch claim is still wrong and subjectve LMAO

good how?
what if a person had thier gall bladder removed and they are one of the few that cant eat green foods now, it cases diarrhea? is broccoli good for them? What about the people it cause over active gas in? etc etc etc

your false claims still arent working and you are further proving them wrong

 

[devildavid]

If "Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively' speaking," then he was, pari passu, a good hitter objectively speaking. Your logic in this post is neither great nor good.
Why don't you start by answering the question posed in #466. This will help you understand the issue.

I understand the issue quite clearly. It is you who do not. You can start by not using subjective adjectives and claiming they are objective descriptions.

 

[RAMOSS]

So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not? It doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...

Can you show that logic could exist without a physical intelligent living being? It doesn't have to be human, but merely sapient and physical.

 

[blarg]

So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not? It doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...

no its rooted their as well you need a mind for the understanding of connections but those connections can exist in mindless object just fine logic is just understanding about the nature of things if this then this

if 3 rocks are on a hill and one rolls down then there will be 2 rocks on the top of the hill so long as the hill stays in the same shape and nothing has put more rocks up their

that would be so if minds exist or not it takes a mind to realize it but it could be so on its own and a mind can recognize that it could and would be so even if you don't have any hills with that number or rocks anyplace

what more do you say is needed and why?

 

[Angel]

Calling a car good is not objective. Calling a car a Volvo is objective. Calling a car red colored is objective. Calling a car a 4 cylinder is objective. See the difference?

Yes. You've made the difference rather clear in this post: I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Clearly, you do not know what you're talking about -- you post from an over-confident ignorance of the things you post about. We're done, as far as I'm concerned. Just to give you one example, which you won't understand of course and on which you'll reply with the typical bravado of over-confident ignorance, colors, like the red referred to in your post, are the quintessential illustrations of subjectivity in empiricism. And here you are boldly citing color as an obvious example of objectivity. Lord luv a duck! Take your materialist authority-on-everything act to some other member's crib and play there, yes? Thanking you in advance.