Morality and Belief in God

[Angel]

The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct

Evidence! Proof! Objective Morality Exists!



Coming Soon To This Thread​

Now Playing at a Post Near You*

Nominated for Best Argument of the Year by the Atheist Guild of America

"Irrefutably Lovely"
New Atheist Chronicle

"Transcending!"
Sam Harris

"D'oh!"
Richard Dawkins
​

*#300
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Seriously, folks, all playfulness aside, the cornerstone of the The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct has just been laid: OBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS.

Any questions before we move on?


Namaste

 

[Quag]

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;

True but that is because your arguments are erroneous.

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.

Objective:

based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/objective

Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objective

Sorry your claims are bogus because your are using imprecise and incorrect language to define objective.
A truth value is what exactly? Something containing 100% truth? 10%? .0000000001%
You cannot show anyone holding a different claim to be false anymore than you can show your claims to be true
You need to learn the meaning of objective ans STOP pretending that your personal opinion is objective.
It isn't.

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.

Same could be said for the opposite of your claims or even just different. Ie Volvo is a bad car or The fence around my houise is a so-so fence.

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

I'm not obsessing you are factually wrong you use incorrect definitions and think your personal subjective e opinion is objectively true
This is false

 

[Quag]

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.

If one says on a rainy day.that it is wet out today, one is expressing an objective evaluation on the nature of the day. It is not a subjective observation except to a contrarian who needs to make out every human observation as subjective in order to support his unreasonable thesis.

This is where you remove the word good and talk about it being wet. I just did the same thing with the Volvo and removed the word good.
The inference is there you have done this before removing the subjective qualifier good to try and pretend I am making an argument I am not.
I did notice you never even tried to deal with my response Now is a rainy day good or bad or neither?
The answer to that is subjective that is why you continually fail you assume that your personal opinion on that is objective. It isn't.

 

[Quag]

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.

That's isn't what I said I said good/bad are subjective terms because they are always based on your personal beliefs or feelings.
There is no way to objectively measure if something is good or bad. Angel started with the watch scenario and falsey equated working with good. That's is his opinion. I gave a few examples where it could be either good or bad depending on the personal opinions of the people involved. Angel ignored these so Ill try with you

Example 1
Terrorist makes bomb uses watch as timer. Watch breaks bomb doesn't go off.
For the terrorist the broken watch is bad for the intended victims it is good.

Example 2
Person is late for work because they are playing with friends. Person puts on a broken watch and tells boss they are sorry they are late their watch broke. Boss accepts excuse and doesn't dock worker any pay.
For the person slacking off the broken watch is good. From the boss's point of view the broken watch is bad

In any use of the terms good/bad you can always have a different opinion (doesn't have to be the opposite BTW) which means it is always subjective.

 

[Quag]

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?​

Both are subjective

 

[AGENT J]

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.

Translation every argument you presented was bested and now you are trying deflections and failed attacks since you cant defend you position. Please let us know when you can, thanks.

 

[AGENT J]

Seriously, folks, all playfulness aside, the cornerstone of the The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct has just been laid: OBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS.

Any questions before we move on?


Namaste​

Nope no questions at all the vast majority here besides 2 posters all understand the fact that your argument as been bested at every turn and multiple posters have exposed its flays and proved it wrong. Your examples were proven to be subjective no matter how many times you falsely claimed they were objective.​

 

[gfm7175]

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.

I asserted, in the very post that you responded to, that I think it would be hard to argue [logic] being rooted in inanimate mindless objects. So when you ask in response "Can you show that logic could exist without a physical intelligent living being?" in a contrarian manner, I'm confused because I gather that we both agree on that particular point. You seem to believe that logic can't exist without the existence of an intelligent mind, and I have agreed with that in the bolded part of my comment above.

This then moves us back to what I posited earlier... Before humans existed, was the statement "there are no humans on the Earth" a true statement?

Anyone in their right mind would answer "yes" to that... So, given this information, this shows that logic existed before humanity existed. If this is so, and if logic can't exist without an intelligent mind, then I think this leads us to THE intelligent mind, otherwise known as God...

And I don't think that another "life force" can be argued for, such as aliens on other planets, because they would then have to be eternal, immaterial, etc. etc. (which would be describing the properties of God, which would be calling God "aliens" instead of calling God "God").

 

[RAMOSS]

I asserted, in the very post that you responded to, that I think it would be hard to argue [logic] being rooted in inanimate mindless objects. So when you ask in response "Can you show that logic could exist without a physical intelligent living being?" in a contrarian manner, I'm confused because I gather that we both agree on that particular point. You seem to believe that logic can't exist without the existence of an intelligent mind, and I have agreed with that in the bolded part of my comment above.

This then moves us back to what I posited earlier... Before humans existed, was the statement "there are no humans on the Earth" a true statement?

Anyone in their right mind would answer "yes" to that... So, given this information, this shows that logic existed before humanity existed. If this is so, and if logic can't exist without an intelligent mind, then I think this leads us to THE intelligent mind, otherwise known as God...

And I don't think that another "life force" can be argued for, such as aliens on other planets, because they would then have to be eternal, immaterial, etc. etc. (which would be describing the properties of God, which would be calling God "aliens" instead of calling God "God").

It is??? Can you show another sapient being at the level of Humanity that have developed the discipline of logic? Can you show that the axioms that another intelligent species that did so would be the same as what western man has developed?

For that matter, can you give me a widely accepted formal definition of "What is logic"?

 

[gfm7175]

That's isn't what I said I said good/bad are subjective terms because they are always based on your personal beliefs or feelings.
There is no way to objectively measure if something is good or bad. Angel started with the watch scenario and falsey equated working with good. That's is his opinion. I gave a few examples where it could be either good or bad depending on the personal opinions of the people involved. Angel ignored these so Ill try with you

Example 1
Terrorist makes bomb uses watch as timer. Watch breaks bomb doesn't go off.
For the terrorist the broken watch is bad for the intended victims it is good.

Example 2
Person is late for work because they are playing with friends. Person puts on a broken watch and tells boss they are sorry they are late their watch broke. Boss accepts excuse and doesn't dock worker any pay.
For the person slacking off the broken watch is good. From the boss's point of view the broken watch is bad

In any use of the terms good/bad you can always have a different opinion (doesn't have to be the opposite BTW) which means it is always subjective.

I still think this is a matter of bickering over what the "proper way to measure" is... Do you measure the "goodness/badness" of a watch by [example 1] whether or not it can properly set a bomb off, [example 2] whether or not it can be used as an excuse for being late to work, or [the reason why watches are made in the first place] whether or not it can be used to tell what time it currently is?

Sure, a bad thing can be twisted into a "good" thing, given different specific circumstances and different measurement methods for those different circumstances, but when it all comes down to it, according to the proper measurement standard [the reason why watches are made in the first place], the watch is objectively a "bad" watch if it isn't keeping track of time correctly.

That is because [the reason why watches are made in the first place] is the "standard" for measuring the goodness/badness of watches... You are merely applying a different standard of measurement to twist an objectively bad watch into a "good" watch, so I find that your objection here can be dismissed as an "appeal to absurdity"...

 

[AGENT J]

I still think this is a matter of bickering over what the "proper way to measure" is... Do you measure the "goodness/badness" of a watch by [example 1] whether or not it can properly set a bomb off, [example 2] whether or not it can be used as an excuse for being late to work, or [the reason why watches are made in the first place] whether or not it can be used to tell what time it currently is?

Sure, a bad thing can be twisted into a "good" thing, given different specific circumstances, but in the end, according to the proper measurement standard [the reason why watches are made in the first place], the watch is objectively a "bad" watch if it isn't keeping track of time correctly.

That is because [the reason why watches are made in the first place] is the "standard" for measuring the goodness/badness of watches... You are merely applying a different standard of measurement to twist an objectively bad watch into a "good" watch...

LMAO Everything you just said further proves its subjective . . YOU feel that way so YOU are claiming its the most important or matters most when it factually doesnt . . . .your feelings simply dont matter on the subjective of subjective vs objective. Nothing you claimed to be objective is, hence your inability to prove otherwise and nobody honest, educated and objective buying it. You are free to "think" what you want but facts and reality dont change based on it.

 

[gfm7175]

It is??? Can you show another sapient being at the level of Humanity that have developed the discipline of logic?

Exactly my point.

In addition, why would the sapient being have to be "at the level of humanity"? Why not transcending humanity?

Can you show that the axioms that another intelligent species that did so would be the same as what western man has developed?

I already have with my question "Before humans existed, was the statement "there are no humans on the Earth" a true statement?" ... That shows that the intelligent mind from which this logic comes from is using this bit of logic in the same way that western man uses it to this day.

For that matter, can you give me a widely accepted formal definition of "What is logic"?

I've given examples earlier... one would be the "law of identity"... Obviously, if one object has at least one differing property from another object, then the objects are not identical to each other. --- this is an example of logic... there are many other examples... "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" would be a definition of "logic".

 

[RAMOSS]

Exactly my point.

In addition, why would the sapient being have to be "at the level of humanity"? Why not transcending humanity?


I already have with my question "Before humans existed, was the statement "there are no humans on the Earth" a true statement?" ... That shows that the intelligent mind from which this logic comes from is using this bit of logic in the same way that western man uses it to this day.


I've given examples earlier... one would be the "law of identity"... Obviously, if one object has at least one differing property from another object, then the objects are not identical to each other. --- this is an example of logic... there are many other examples... "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" would be a definition of "logic".

That would be our human perspective.. but that is not showing how an alien species would think. In this case, what if the alien species did not have the concept of 'time'?? Or 'before'??

Now, what is the widely accepted formal definition of logic?

 

[Quag]

I still think this is a matter of bickering over what the "proper way to measure" is... Do you measure the "goodness/badness" of a watch by [example 1] whether or not it can properly set a bomb off, [example 2] whether or not it can be used as an excuse for being late to work, or [the reason why watches are made in the first place] whether or not it can be used to tell what time it currently is?

Exactly how someone decides to measure the "goodness" of a watch is subjective.

Sure, a bad thing can be twisted into a "good" thing, given different specific circumstances and different measurement methods for those different circumstances, but when it all comes down to it, according to the proper measurement standard [the reason why watches are made in the first place], the watch is objectively a "bad" watch if it isn't keeping track of time correctly.

There is no proper measurment standard for good. "Good" is whatever the person using the term decides it is which makes it subjective.
But lets look at the claim that a bad watch is one that inst keeping track of time correctly.
Bulova precisionist watches are among the most accurate in the world. I have 2 one currently needs a new battery (my watch tools are too small I cant do it myself and havent taken the time to bring it in to fix).
It loses time roughly 10 seconds a year and thus is not truly accurate. We also have atomic watches that get their time from atomic clocks but these arent really accurate either especially when they cannot update due to interference/range issues. Atomic clocks themselves arent accurate either they are just better than anything else. For comparison your average watch loses 3 minutes a year. Thus by your metric of being accurate no watch is "good".

That is because [the reason why watches are made in the first place] is the "standard" for measuring the goodness/badness of watches... You are merely applying a different standard of measurement to twist an objectively bad watch into a "good" watch, so I find that your objection here can be dismissed as an "appeal to absurdity"...

Your use of the term good is subjective here. Lets look at some other watches I have. My Raymond Weil is "good" if you look at the monetary value, my rubber bracelet casio is "good" if you look at the amount of use it gets. I have an Invicta that is good for 500M of pressure it is "good" by that metric. My non working Bulova is "good" when compared to a cheap walmart watch if you look at monetary worth, workmansip, quality of materials etc but until I put a battery in it is "bad" when trying to see what time it is while the walmart junk would be "good" in comparison. Or to put it another way if I offered to give someone by Bulova or a cheap 10$ watch that works which do you think they will pick? If they pick the Bulova they can spend 15$ to put a battery in it sell it for about 300$ or they can have a cheap watch that might not even work very long (have you ever used one of those things they are basically disposable). I am pretty sure most would pick what you consider to be the "bad" watch.

These are all subjective because good doesnt mean accurate or monetary value or water resistance it means what we decide it means, which makes it subjective.

 

[fishnthec]

A non-theist can be moral, plenty of times even more-so than a theist.

I don't think that's the focus of the OP, however.

The OP seems to be focused on the "inner workings" of morality between the theist and the non-theist... (how "binding" morality is, and likewise)

I think the OP should just spit it out and say what he really means!

I mean, he has a new GOD- Good Ole Donald!

Ridiculous! Hilarious! LOL! LMAO!

 

[gfm7175]

I still think this is a matter of bickering over what the "proper way to measure" is...

Exactly how someone decides to measure the "goodness" of a watch is subjective.

Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.

There is no proper measurment standard for good. "Good" is whatever the person using the term decides it is which makes it subjective.
But lets look at the claim that a bad watch is one that inst keeping track of time correctly.
Bulova precisionist watches are among the most accurate in the world. I have 2 one currently needs a new battery (my watch tools are too small I cant do it myself and havent taken the time to bring it in to fix).
It loses time roughly 10 seconds a year and thus is not truly accurate. We also have atomic watches that get their time from atomic clocks but these arent really accurate either especially when they cannot update due to interference/range issues. Atomic clocks themselves arent accurate either they are just better than anything else. For comparison your average watch loses 3 minutes a year. Thus by your metric of being accurate no watch is "good".

Given what we are currently capable of achieving, most watches are good and accurate. I'm not interested in your endless reductions to absurdity...

Your use of the term good is subjective here. Lets look at some other watches I have. My Raymond Weil is "good" if you look at the monetary value, my rubber bracelet casio is "good" if you look at the amount of use it gets. I have an Invicta that is good for 500M of pressure it is "good" by that metric. My non working Bulova is "good" when compared to a cheap walmart watch if you look at monetary worth, workmansip, quality of materials etc but until I put a battery in it is "bad" when trying to see what time it is while the walmart junk would be "good" in comparison. These are all subejctive because good doesnt mean accurate or monetary value or water resistance it means what we decide it means, which makes it subjective.

Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.

Angel, nor I, are claiming that the answer is absolute, as you are showing very well in your examples how the answer to the "watch dilemma" isn't an absolute answer, but the answer is still an objective answer no matter how you decide you wish to measure the "goodness" of a particular watch.

 

[AGENT J]

Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.


Given what we are currently capable of achieving, most watches are good and accurate. I'm not interested in your endless reductions to absurdity...



Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.

Angel, nor I, are claiming that the answer is absolute, as you are showing very well in your examples how the answer to the "watch dilemma" isn't an absolute answer, but the answer is still an objective answer no matter how you decide you wish to measure the "goodness" of a particular watch.

no its not an objective answer unless your feelings and opinions want it to be or feel your answer maters. Hence no matter what you claim its still subjective. You can repeat your false claims 100 times it will still be subjective in general.

 

[Quag]

Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.

Yes and that objective answer is neither good nor bad. In Angels scenario the answer is working or not working.

Given what we are currently capable of achieving, most watches are good and accurate. I'm not interested in your endless reductions to absurdity...

No most watches are objectively fairly accurate the term good remains subjective.

Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.

Yes and that objective answer is neither good nor bad

Angel, nor I, are claiming that the answer is absolute, as you are showing very well in your examples how the answer to the "watch dilemma" isn't an absolute answer, but the answer is still an objective answer no matter how you decide you wish to measure the "goodness" of a particular watch.

No it isn't objective it remains subjective.
You have claimed a working watch is good I have shown that it is subjective with my examples I have also shown that the choice of "working" for a measurement is subjective.


If I offered to give you my Bulova which needs a battery or a cheap Walmart watch which would you take?

 

[Vadinho]

Why would any of us live our lives following the advice of people who lived 2 and 3 thousand years ago? We have come so far since then that it astounds me anyone truly thinks they have something timeless to contribute to us. These are people who did not even understand that germs cause diseases or that the earth revolved around the sun. They were illiterate, poor and ignorant. While they told wonderful stories to each other which we enjoy reading today, who really says to themselves while sitting in a cubicle updating spreadsheets "let me see if I can find something in Exodus to help me decide what to do today". I mean, this is absurdity. I am sure none of you consults with Osiris or Horus on how to behave or think about the world. The whole thing is just preposterous to me.

 

[Daisy]

Why would any of us live our lives following the advice of people who lived 2 and 3 thousand years ago? We have come so far since then that it astounds me anyone truly thinks they have something timeless to contribute to us. These are people who did not even understand that germs cause diseases or that the earth revolved around the sun. They were illiterate, poor and ignorant. While they told wonderful stories to each other which we enjoy reading today, who really says to themselves while sitting in a cubicle updating spreadsheets "let me see if I can find something in Exodus to help me decide what to do today". I mean, this is absurdity. I am sure none of you consults with Osiris or Horus on how to behave or think about the world. The whole thing is just preposterous to me.

So not true...for example...

Consider the Bible’s coverage of another field: health and sanitation. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being leprosy, he was put in isolation. “All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place.” (Leviticus 13:46) Even infected garments were burned. (Leviticus 13:52) In those days, this was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection.

Another important law had to do with the disposal of human excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible, they would be much healthier.

The Bible’s high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A Bible proverb said: “A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones.” (Proverbs 14:30) In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Doctor C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.​

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989038

 

[Angel]

...the cornerstone of the The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct has just been laid: OBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS.

Any questions before we move on?

No questions? Good.

The next step in the argument (presented in full at #300) is to find in the scientific recognition of the life instinct, the instinct of self-preservation, the survival instinct, the fundamental objective evaluation inherent in all living things, innate to life on earth, the basic mandate of all living being: Live.

Life possesses value in itself, a universal objective value.

 

[devildavid]

No questions? Good.

The next step in the argument (presented in full at #300) is to find in the scientific recognition of the life instinct, the instinct of self-preservation, the survival instinct, the fundamental objective evaluation inherent in all living things, innate to life on earth, the basic mandate of all living being: Live.

Life possesses value in itself, a universal objective value.

Echo...echo...echo...echo...

 

[Angel]

Echo...echo...echo...echo...

The echo of truth is resounding clear; the echolalia of atheistic materialism is noise.

 

[Quag]

The echo of truth is resounding clear; the echolalia of atheistic materialism is noise.

Says the guy who uses Good/bad subjectively then falsely claims his subjective opinion is objective.

 

[devildavid]

Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.


Given what we are currently capable of achieving, most watches are good and accurate. I'm not interested in your endless reductions to absurdity...



Yes, BUT each "measurement method" has an objective answer to it, thus making the answer objective.

Angel, nor I, are claiming that the answer is absolute, as you are showing very well in your examples how the answer to the "watch dilemma" isn't an absolute answer, but the answer is still an objective answer no matter how you decide you wish to measure the "goodness" of a particular watch.

And the answer is never "good" or "bad" because those words do not indicate a measurement of anything but subjective opinion. Good and bad are not objective descriptors.