MrAnony1:


You will need to actually make a proper argument as to why not beating a child because of the reasons you listed is better than not beating a child because it goes against the nature of Christ.

you really don't give a s*hit about how the child feels, the only thing you want to do is serve, and you re here talking about morality, you should be ashamed. Because your morality is to your master and not to morality

MrAnony1:
Evil by definition is that which we ought not to do. Perhaps you can explain to me how it is logically coherent for something to be supposed to do what it isn't supposed to do.

You contradict yourself mr man, when you say evil is what we ought not to do and we are created to do good, and still yet we do evil which we ought not do

MrAnony1:
Why do good? Because good is what we were
created to do. It is the purpose for which we
were designed (see Ephesians 2:10)

thehomer:

Looks like you're going for a circular definition here that thoroughly ignores my question.

Of course, isolate the first sentence in a 200 word answer and claim that it ignores your question. By the way, what is a circular definition and how does how I define good fit that description?

How do you know that what you ought to do is good?

This is like asking me how I know that a triangle has three sides. It is a senseless question. . . .or perhaps you don't know the meaning of "by definition"

All I see you doing is trying to dance around relating goodness to something having to do with human beings.

I don't see what you see

Where does this "purpose for which we exist" come from?

IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. (Note the IF)

Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it.

Looks to me like another one of your mere assertions that you've decided to hang everything on.

A mere assertion you say...why don't you disprove it by showing how it is false to say that if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live.

Who even says that there is a "purpose for which we exist"?

If there is no purpose for which we exist, then there is no objectively right way for us to live our lives.

I don't see how the existence of this creator of yours makes any difference. e.g What if the creator is evil?

How can the creator be evil if good is that which we ought to do and that which we ought to do depends on the purposes of the one who created us?

Now we're getting somewhere. I take it that you know what the Christian God's will and purpose are and you think you can determine what it is from the Bible that is so unclear that it has allowed multiple even contradictory sects?

With this line, you've successfully not answered any question. What is Christlike? Is it Christlike to command a genocide? Is it Christlike to command that children be killed? Is it Christlike to leave one's family for the sake of some preacher?

You can always read about Christ in the Gospels to understand what it means to be Christlike and if the "multiple contradictory sects" you talk about are Christlike.

I know based on whether or not its effects generally help or harm people.

I see, so do you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm? Or is it based on your subjective opinion?

I hope you'll be able to give concrete responses to the issues I've raised above.

I have already.

pesty100:

You contradict yourself mr man, when you say evil is what we ought not to do and we are created to do good, and still yet we do evil which we ought not do

Doing what you ought not to do does not contradict the fact that you ought not to do it.

pesty100:
you really don't give a s*hit about how the child feels, the only thing you want to do is serve, and you re here talking about morality, you should be ashamed. Because your morality is to your master and not to morality

I am curious to know exactly what you mean by suggesting that I should be moral to morality. You seem to think it is so important to the extent that I should be ashamed because "my morality is not to morality". Please explain what you mean by the phrase.

pesty100:
you are making the Fallacy of the single cause , beacause the flying spaghetti monster is also necessarily wise

I don't see how the fallacy of a single cause applies to what you quoted. Perhaps you can explain exactly how it does.

MrAnony1:

Doing what you ought not to do does not contradict the fact that you ought not to do it.

MrAnony1:

Why do good? Because good is what we were
created to do. It is the purpose for which we
were designed (see Ephesians 2:10)

Just re-read what you have wrote so far and you will see what am saying

MrAnony1:


I am curious to know exactly what you mean by suggesting that I should be moral to morality. You seem to think it is so important to the extent that I should be ashamed because "my morality is not to morality". Please explain what you mean by the phrase.

You are not moral because you think it right, or because you empathise on the other person's feelings, you are moral because your story book says you should be, just like the muslim's story book tells them to kill those that doesn't agree with them, if your story book had told you so, who know how many head you would have taken

MrAnony1:

I don't see how the fallacy of a single cause applies to what you quoted. Perhaps you can explain exactly how it does.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal
oversimplification[35]) – it is assumed that there
is one, simple cause of an outcome

MrAnony1:

Evil by definition is that which we ought not to do. What you are saying is that it is possible to design a thing to function as it was not designed to function . . . .and that is logically incoherent.

This was what I said:

Kay17: Remember that earlier you said we are to do good, because we are designed to do good; so using the same logic, IF we were designed to be evil, equally we should do evil.

How exactly did you arrive at this statement from what I said?

Because you have earlier confirmed that no man is sinless and is pushed to sin by his desires.

MrAnony1:


The question I have asked and keep asking is can you as an atheist prove to me with 100% certainty that there is no God/gods?

Just as it is impossible for an atheist to prove to a religious adherent that God doesn't exist , it is equally impossible for a religious adherent to prove that God does exist but we both have strong indications to justify what we believe in.

neoapocalypse:


Just as it is impossible for an atheist to prove to a religious adherent that God doesn't exist , it is equally impossible for a religious adherent to prove that God does exist but we both have strong indications to justify what we believe in.

FALSE.

An atheist can prove that the christian god, the muslim god and many religious gods do not exist.

However, the atheist cant prove that a god doesnt exist

logicboy01:




FALSE.

An atheist can prove that the christian god, the muslim god and many religious gods do not exist.

However, the atheist cant prove that a god doesnt exist

An atheist can prove to another atheist or to another who has an open mind and not to one who believes in God. A religious adherent has what they call "faith" - see without seeing , hear without hearing and think without physical proof. As much as you try to use logic to prove the nonexistence of God faith goes against anything logic and true the concept of a God defiles logic.

neoapocalypse:

An atheist can prove to another atheist or to another who has open mind and not to one who believes in God. A religious adherent has what they call "faith" - see without seeing , hear without hearing and think without physical proof. As much as you try to use logic to prove the nonexistence of God faith goes against anything logic and true the concept of a God defiles logic.

Dont you just hate it when faith is used to nullify your hard-worked logic?

logicboy01:






Dont you just hate it when faith is used to nullify your hard-worked logic?

lol yeah , well they have a reason for believing what they believe , logic and faith can never be used to explain the same thing so I suggest each party should hold on to his/her beliefs.

MrAnony1:

That's not what I said. I do not differentiate between good and what ought to be done. They are one and the same.

Why should they be one and the same?

MrAnony1:

You completely missed the point made. The point is that where there is an "ought", a purpose must invariably follow. If you ought to do X, there must be a purpose for it. If there is no purpose for doing X then there is no way of rightfully saying that one ought to do X.

For instance, you ought not to use drugs in china because the purpose is to preserve your life. If the purpose is not to preserve your life (i.e. assuming there was no Chinese law against drugs and drugs don't kill you) then there is no point in saying that you ought not to take drugs.

Okay

MrAnony1:

Likewise if there is a certain way that we objectively ought to live our lives then it necessarily follows that there must be an objective purpose for which we live.

"Objective" being the operative word

MrAnony1:

Good so we agree that IF it is true that there is an objective purpose for which we exist, then it must be true that we are designed. (note the IF)

For the avoidance of equivocation, I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of preceding "purpose" with "objective" above.

MrAnony1:

Yes I believe that good exists in an objective sense. Don't you agree?

(Notice that you do not disagree with the premise that an objective good necessitates the existence of a creator. Rather you question the existence of an objective good.)

No, I don't agree.

MrAnony1:

What should this prove look like? What would satisfy your requirements for proof.

I'm open to any kind of proof. My only requirement is that it is foolproof.

MrAnony1:

Not at all. The Creator has a purpose in the sense that he purposes (i.e. He has a purpose for His creation). On the other hand, the created has a purpose in the sense that he is purposed (i.e he has a purpose given to him by the Creator) To mix up the different ways "purpose" is used here will be to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

I see no equivocation. Whence comes this purposing purpose of the creator? Is it of an objective/subjective origin, that is, did the creator just decide to give itself a purpose?

MrAnony1:

So in other words, you don't know whether certain actions are good. You only subjectively hold an opinion of what may or may not be good (i.e. maximizing pain and minimizing pleasure). You even go further to actively doubt your own opinions.

I know that certain actions are good based on my subjective opinions, and my opinions are informed and strengthened by the consequential feedback of those actions.

MrAnony1:

The problem with this is that you have effectively excluded yourself from any meaningful discussion concerning what is right or wrong. The best you can say is that you have an opinion and that's pretty useless to the discourse since nearly everyone else does. There is no objective standard by which we can say that your opinion of maximizing pleasure is any better than the opinion to maximize pain held by someone else.

There is no problem here at all. Take physical pain for instance. We can, from phenomenological evidence, infer the near universality of pain (pleasure, likewise) in all animals with a central nervous system. From this, we can further infer that animals generally despise pain. Hence, we act in such a way to reduce this pain.
As you can see, my opinion, though subjective, is still informed. And you’re right that there is no “objective” standard that makes it preferable. Nevertheless, there are universal standards, some rational, others, not so much, which inform the side that takes preponderance. Of course, these universal standards can sometimes be questioned and eventually overturned (e.g. slavery and homosexuality) and at other times, they endure due to perceived necessity or group pleasures (e.g. eating other animals and neutering pets). It is usually the very high degree of universality of certain opinions that creates the illusion of objectivity.

pesty100:
you really don't give a s*hit about how the child feels, the only thing you want to do is serve, and you re here talking about morality, you should be ashamed. Because your morality is to your master and not to morality

No. Our morality is to our master, the creator, and he commands us to do good by loving one another. So we do good to obey our master who commands us to love one another.

There is nothing like being moral to morality, as every man ultimately acts according to selfish interest, at one point or another.

Joshthefirst:
No. Our morality is to our master, the creator, and he commands us to do good by loving one another. So we do good to obey our master who commands us to love one another.

There is nothing like being moral to morality, as every man ultimately acts according to selfish interest, at one point or another.

Joshthefirst!!! I missed you, homie


oh by the way, morality has nothing to do with God

logicboy01:



Joshthefirst!!! I missed you, homie


oh by the way, morality has nothing to do with God

Lol.

Missed you guys too. Been very busy lately.


Yeah, and morality has everything to do with God.

Joshthefirst:
Lol.

Missed you guys too. Been very busy lately.


Yeah, and morality has everything to do with God.

MrAnony1:

Of course, isolate the first sentence in a 200 word answer and claim that it ignores your question. By the way, what is a circular definition and how does how I define good fit that description?

Circular definition: A definition relying directly or indirectly on the term being defined.
Your phrase "that which we ought to do" is very vague because you have to actually spell out what it is that we ought to do and explain that it is the same for everyone if you wish to universalize the concept of the good.
Now will you try to clarify what you mean by good?

MrAnony1:
This is like asking me how I know that a triangle has three sides. It is a senseless question. . . .or perhaps you don't know the meaning of "by definition"

This is a senseless response. A triangle axiomatically has three sides. Goodness is not axiomatic. If you wish to make it axiomatic, then you have to do the work required.

MrAnony1:
I don't see what you see

That's because you're blinded by your confusion.

MrAnony1:
IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. (Note the IF)

Don't bother hedging with the "if". Tell me what this objective way in which we ought to live is. I would prefer it if you could actually spell it out.

MrAnony1:
Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it.

This is a silly request. You're asking me to agree with you before you even present your argument. Secondly, you request for my explanation is useless because you're the one stating that everyone ought to do some particular thing not me. This means you're asking me to make your argument for you. And that is one of the signs of intellectual laziness.
So, you can actually proceed to explain where this purpose comes from for us to examine whether or not it is valid. Who knows, if I think it is valid, then I may take the next step.

MrAnony1:
A mere assertion you say...why don't you disprove it by showing how it is false to say that if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live.

You have successfully committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. You're saying that you're right because I haven't proved you to be wrong. That is the wrong way to go about it. You're supposed to show you're right by actually demonstrating your reasons.

MrAnony1:
If there is no purpose for which we exist, then there is no objectively right way for us to live our lives.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

MrAnony1:
How can the creator be evil if good is that which we ought to do and that which we ought to do depends on the purposes of the one who created us?

If this creator wants humans to enslave other humans, if this creator wants humans to kill at his whim, if this creator wants the vast majority of humans to be tortured, I'd say it is pretty evil.

MrAnony1:
You can always read about Christ in the Gospels to understand what it means to be Christlike and if the "multiple contradictory sects" you talk about are Christlike.

The multiple sects are real and they read about Christ in the gospels so there's no point in me doing that. It is in fact you who should do that and tell me who the correct sect is. After all, Roman Catholicism is very different from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with is also very different from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. You can tell me which if any of them is correct after you have read your Bible.

MrAnony1:
I see, so do you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm? Or is it based on your subjective opinion?

I have a method that is as good as how we know whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Whether you think it is objective or subjective is up for discussion. But be aware that pursuing that discussion will require you to present your own ideas.

MrAnony1:
I have already.

No you've not. You're as usual danced around and avoided directly answering any questions. You'll notice that I on the other hand have directly answered your questions.

joshthefirst:

joshthefirst......

@op if there is no man on earth, would there be the god u talk about ? no...not even the world & everything therein. That means the existence of man is the author of everything including the gods .The word gods were established by theists to affect the clear interpretation of the human "transcedent" which is natural to everyone in a good state of mantra.Or has anyone sensed god other than thru imagination. Not until u realize that u ar god," u can never find him and ie u.

OlaAjia

I had some scientific questions, but they escape me atm. It is your duty, being one of the few I wouldn't dispute is smarter than I am, to clarify these for me when I do recall them.

Happy Sallah!

wiegraf:
OlaAjia

I had some scientific questions, but they escape me atm. It is your duty, being one of the few I wouldn't dispute is smarter than I am, to clarify these for me when I do recall them.

Happy Sallah!

Hi Wiegraf, the suggestion that I'm smarter than you is not a position I would like to defend. As such, I shall only bask in the feel-good effect of the flattery, while rejecting its argument. Thanks

I love scientific questions too, and I shall be happy to look into your question; and should my knowledge prove worthy enough, maybe even come up with a satisfactory answer. Take your time though, no pressure

Happy Sallah to you too

wiegraf:


joshthefirst......

Lol. Even wiegraf missed me too. I assumed you'd naturally be too proud to admit it.

pesty100:

Just re-read what you have wrote so far and you will see what am saying

I have re-read it now and I still do not see what you are saying

You are not moral because you think it right, or because you empathise on the other person's feelings

I never said so

you are moral because your story book says you should be, just like the muslim's story book tells them to kill those that doesn't agree with them, if your story book had told you so, who know how many head you would have taken

I don't know what story books you are referring to. Please go back and read what I actually said.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal
oversimplification[35]) – it is assumed that there
is one, simple cause of an outcome

I didn't ask you what the fallacy is, I asked you how it applies.

Kay17:

This was what I said:

Yes I heard you clearly and my point still remains that it is logically incoherent to create man to do evil. It is about as illogical as saying that you designed something to malfunction.

Because you have earlier confirmed that no man is sinless and is pushed to sin by his desires.

Yes and I also remember saying that "one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (who forgives and cleanses us from sin), forsaking sin and living righteously (with the help of the Holy Spirit)."

thehomer:

Circular definition: A definition relying directly or indirectly on the term being defined.

How does the definition "that which we ought to do" rely directly or indirectly on the term "Good" which is being defined?

This is a senseless response. A triangle axiomatically has three sides. Goodness is not axiomatic. If you wish to make it axiomatic, then you have to do the work required.

Good is axiomatically that which we ought to do . . . . or do you know of anything that is good but ought not to be done?

That's because you're blinded by your confusion.

Lol....I see. Please could you explain to me exactly what I am supposed to be confused about.

Don't bother hedging with the "if". Tell me what this objective way in which we ought to live is. I would prefer it if you could actually spell it out.

I am not "hedging with the if" The statement remains what it is. Do you think it is true or not?

This is a silly request. You're asking me to agree with you before you even present your argument.

I am quite sure I asked you if you agree with my premise or not, please show where I asked you to agree with me before I present my argument.

Secondly, you request for my explanation is useless because you're the one stating that everyone ought to do some particular thing not me. This means you're asking me to make your argument for you. And that is one of the signs of intellectual laziness.

Wow I wonder how you got "everyone needs to do a particular thing" from that statement, I said:

"IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live."

I asked you if you agreed with the above premise and to give reasons if you disagree. Please stop dancing around and accusing me of things I haven't said.

You have successfully committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. You're saying that you're right because I haven't proved you to be wrong. That is the wrong way to go about it. You're supposed to show you're right by actually demonstrating your reasons.

No I did not say that I am right because you haven't proved me wrong, You are the one who thinks that I need to provide reasons why if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. I don't see why I have to give reasons for something so obvious.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Really? How so?

If this creator wants humans to enslave other humans, if this creator wants humans to kill at his whim, if this creator wants the vast majority of humans to be tortured, I'd say it is pretty evil.

Is it evil because you say so? Or is it evil because of some other reason independent of your opinion? and if so, what reason would that be?

The multiple sects are real and they read about Christ in the gospels so there's no point in me doing that. It is in fact you who should do that and tell me who the correct sect is. After all, Roman Catholicism is very different from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with is also very different from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. You can tell me which if any of them is correct after you have read your Bible.

Lol, I see. So you have refused to find out for yourself. Ok . . . did I mention how much I admire your open-mindedness.

I have a method that is as good as how we know whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Whether you think it is objective or subjective is up for discussion. But be aware that pursuing that discussion will require you to present your own ideas.

In other words you haven't answered my question about whether or not you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm.

No you've not. You're as usual danced around and avoided directly answering any questions. You'll notice that I on the other hand have directly answered your questions.

Lololololol...I really appreciate all your "direct answers" which consist of bluntly refusing to answer the questions asked of you and while accusing me of saying what I did not say.

MrAnony1:

Good is axiomatically that which we ought to do . . . . or do you know of anything that is good but ought not to be done?

#twisting
#spinning
#sophistry

MrAnony1:

Yes I heard you clearly and my point still remains that it is logically incoherent to create man to do evil. It is about as illogical as saying that you designed something to malfunction.

No, that's a twist you got yourself into. Because you defined good and evil with the most absurd meaning. Good meaning conforming with the intents of the design and Evil being straying from the intent of the design. So a machine such as an AK 47 that doesn't kill people well enough is definitely an evil machine!!

Yes and I also remember saying that "one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (who forgives and cleanses us from sin), forsaking sin and living righteously (with the help of the Holy Spirit)."

So that establishes my claim that the Christian is a typical hypocrite.

MrAnony1:

How does the definition "that which we ought to do" rely directly or indirectly on the term "Good" which is being defined?

It does this by your vagueness on what you mean by the phrase "that which we ought to do".

MrAnony1:

Good is axiomatically that which we ought to do . . . . or do you know of anything that is good but ought not to be done?

And here you show that your definition of "good" relies on the phrase "that which we ought to do". Well I'll let you decide. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? Please don't run from this question. Your entire argument hinges on it.

MrAnony1:

Lol....I see. Please could you explain to me exactly what I am supposed to be confused about.

What you mean by good.

MrAnony1:

I am not "hedging with the if" The statement remains what it is. Do you think it is true or not?

I think it is meaningless until you can explain what this objective way to live is.

MrAnony1:

I am quite sure I asked you if you agree with my premise or not, please show where I asked you to agree with me before I present my argument.

Where you said this:

MrAnony1:

Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it.

MrAnony1:

Wow I wonder how you got "everyone needs to do a particular thing" from that statement, I said:

"IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live."

I asked you if you agreed with the above premise and to give reasons if you disagree. Please stop dancing around and accusing me of things I haven't said.

That is no a premise, that is your entire argument. Secondly, you've misquoted me. I did not say everyone needs to do a particular thing. Thirdly, if you understand that argument, you'll see that I've captured what you're saying. If you think I've misrepresented you, then you're welcome to clarify your statement.

MrAnony1:

No I did not say that I am right because you haven't proved me wrong, You are the one who thinks that I need to provide reasons why if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. I don't see why I have to give reasons for something so obvious.

That is actually what you're saying when you're asking me to prove you wrong otherwise your point stands. So far, I've asked you to show that there is some objective way that we ought to live but so far, you've not done that. Instead you've started confusing yourself.

MrAnony1:

Really? How so?

Even if there is no cosmic purpose for human existence, there can still be right ways for humans to live.

MrAnony1:

Is it evil because you say so? Or is it evil because of some other reason independent of your opinion? and if so, what reason would that be?

I see you're on a 200 question roll. Let's simplify things by you saying whether or not it is evil to enslave other humans, to kill people at the whims of some other person or torture the vast majority of humans. Then we can take it a step at a time.

MrAnony1:

Lol, I see. So you have refused to find out for yourself. Ok . . . did I mention how much I admire your open-mindedness.

Since you know, why don't you tell me the correct sect of Christianity?

MrAnony1:

In other words you haven't answered my question about whether or not you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm.

I have an objective method of differentiating. Whether or not you accept it is up to you. After all, the evidence for evolution is objective but creationists and others don't accept it. As I said, I can tell whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Can you?

MrAnony1:

Lololololol...I really appreciate all your "direct answers" which consist of bluntly refusing to answer the questions asked of you and while accusing me of saying what I did not say.

Again, I've answered your questions but so far, you've not answered any of my questions but you've tried to play 200 questions. That too won't work. You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying what you think "that which we ought to do" actually refers to with some actual examples. I've given you examples but you've tried to run from them. Try not to run and challenge your fears.

OlaAjia:
Why should they be one and the same?

I don't see why not. Or can you think of anything that we ought to do that is not good?

Okay



"Objective" being the operative word

Yes

For the avoidance of equivocation, I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of preceding "purpose" with "objective" above.

I don't mind

No, I don't agree.

I see, so you don't agree that there is such a thing as an objective good.

I'm open to any kind of proof. My only requirement is that it is foolproof.

I see, so you asked:

"Can you prove that what you presume to be the will and purpose of the creator is, indeed, the will and purpose of the creator?"

The level of proof you are requesting is unrealistic. It is as about as unrealistic as asking

"Can you prove that what you presume to be the intents of Mr Anony are actually the intents of Mr Anony" and your proof must be foolproof.

I do hope that you realize that whether or not you are able to do this, it does not change the fact that Anony does indeed have intents driving what you believe to be his comment.

I see no equivocation. Whence comes this purposing purpose of the creator? Is it of an objective/subjective origin, that is, did the creator just decide to give itself a purpose?

You are still equivocating between purpose in the sense that one intends to do something and purpose in the sense that one ought to do something.

I know that certain actions are good based on my subjective opinions, and my opinions are informed and strengthened by the consequential feedback of those actions.

Wrong. You cannot know any facts based on your subjective opinions other than the fact that you have a subjective opinion about facts. At best, you think that certain actions are good based on consequences which you have also subjectively decided are good. That is circular reasoning my friend.

There is no problem here at all. Take physical pain for instance. We can, from phenomenological evidence, infer the near universality of pain (pleasure, likewise) in all animals with a central nervous system. From this, we can further infer that animals generally despise pain. Hence, we act in such a way to reduce this pain.

Now what you have said here is true but then the fact that we know that animals despise pain does not impose a moral obligation upon us to reduce it.
To do make the jump you are trying to make, you must assume that there is an objective moral principle that requires that reducing pain ought to be done and inflicting pain ought not to be done. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

As you can see, my opinion, though subjective, is still informed. And you’re right that there is no “objective” standard that makes it preferable. Nevertheless, there are universal standards, some rational, others, not so much, which inform the side that takes preponderance. Of course, these universal standards can sometimes be questioned and eventually overturned (e.g. slavery and homosexuality) and at other times, they endure due to perceived necessity or group pleasures (e.g. eating other animals and neutering pets).

I see, would it be fair to say based on what you have said here that we don't know if slavery for instance is right or wrong because just as it was "overturned", it could be overturned tomorrow to become right? Also the slavers were not doing anything wrong because at the time it was believed to be right by most people?

Again, I hope you do realize that you seem to be saying that what the majority believe to be right is right.

It is usually the very high degree of universality of certain opinions that creates the illusion of objectivity.

I think it is this sentence that expresses your point most clearly. A point I very much disagree with at a fundamental level because if it is true, then there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the words.

What this means for you is that you cannot really condemn any actions as wrong because you cannot authoritatively do that based on what you believe to be false.

OlaAjia:
Why should they be one and the same?

I don't see why not. Or can you think of anything that we ought to do that is not good?

Okay



"Objective" being the operative word

Yes

For the avoidance of equivocation, I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of preceding "purpose" with "objective" above.

I don't mind

No, I don't agree.

I see, so you don't agree that there is such a thing as an objective good.

I'm open to any kind of proof. My only requirement is that it is foolproof.

I see, so you asked:

"Can you prove that what you presume to be the will and purpose of the creator is, indeed, the will and purpose of the creator?"

The level of proof you are requesting is unrealistic. It is as about as unrealistic as asking

"Can you prove that what you presume to be the intents of Mr Anony are actually the intents of Mr Anony" and your proof must be foolproof.

I do hope that you realize that whether or not you are able to do this, it does not change the fact that Anony does indeed have intents driving what you believe to be his comment.

I see no equivocation. Whence comes this purposing purpose of the creator? Is it of an objective/subjective origin, that is, did the creator just decide to give itself a purpose?

You are still equivocating between purpose in the sense that one intends to do something and purpose in the sense that one ought to do something.

I know that certain actions are good based on my subjective opinions, and my opinions are informed and strengthened by the consequential feedback of those actions.

Wrong. You cannot know any facts based on your subjective opinions other than the fact that you have a subjective opinion about facts. At best, you think that certain actions are good based on consequences which you have also subjectively decided are good. That is circular reasoning my friend.

There is no problem here at all. Take physical pain for instance. We can, from phenomenological evidence, infer the near universality of pain (pleasure, likewise) in all animals with a central nervous system. From this, we can further infer that animals generally despise pain. Hence, we act in such a way to reduce this pain.

Now what you have said here is true but then the fact that we know that animals despise pain does not impose a moral obligation upon us to reduce it.
To do make the jump you are trying to make, you must assume that there is an objective moral principle that requires that reducing pain ought to be done and inflicting pain ought not to be done. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

As you can see, my opinion, though subjective, is still informed. And you’re right that there is no “objective” standard that makes it preferable. Nevertheless, there are universal standards, some rational, others, not so much, which inform the side that takes preponderance. Of course, these universal standards can sometimes be questioned and eventually overturned (e.g. slavery and homosexuality) and at other times, they endure due to perceived necessity or group pleasures (e.g. eating other animals and neutering pets).

I see, would it be fair to say based on what you have said here that we don't know if slavery for instance is right or wrong because just as it was "overturned", it could be overturned tomorrow to become right? Also the slavers were not doing anything wrong because at the time it was believed to be right by most people?

Again, I hope you do realize that you seem to be saying that what the majority believe to be right is right.

It is usually the very high degree of universality of certain opinions that creates the illusion of objectivity.

I think it is this sentence that expresses your point most clearly. A point I very much disagree with at a fundamental level because if it is true, then there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the words.

What this means for you is that you cannot really condemn any actions as wrong because you cannot authoritatively do that based on what you believe to be false. At best what you can say is "I don't like slavery" for instance. What you can never say is that "slavery is wrong"

Kay17:

No, that's a twist you got yourself into. Because you defined good and evil with the most absurd meaning. Good meaning conforming with the intents of the design and Evil being straying from the intent of the design. So a machine such as an AK 47 that doesn't kill people well enough is definitely an evil machine!!

You have made a category error. An AK47 is not a moral being. An AK47 can be good or bad in the mechanistic sense of how well it functions according to it's design. Assigning a morals to something that has nothing to do with morality in the hope of scoring a point is ignorant at best and dubious at worst.

So that establishes my claim that the Christian is a typical hypocrite.

No it does not. "one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (who forgives and cleanses us from sin), forsaking sin and living righteously (with the help of the Holy Spirit)."

thehomer:
It does this by your vagueness on what you mean by the phrase "that which we ought to do".

Lolololol...So you are saying that the phrase "that which we ought to do" relies on the word "good" by being vague How does something rely on another by being vague? You seem very confused my friend. Let

By the way, there is absolutely nothing vague about that answer. It is exactly what good is and I will illustrate it for you using your example below.

And here you show that your definition of "good" relies on the phrase "that which we ought to do". Well I'll let you decide. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? Please don't run from this question. Your entire argument hinges on it.

Lololol...first of all my argument does not hinge on the question you asked above because it doesn't seek a definition but an example.

Furthermore, the fact that your question can easily be rephrased as "ought we to command someone to kill their child?" clearly shows that "Good is that which we ought to do.

It is similar to how "Is this shape a triangle?" can equally be expressed as "Is this a three sided closed shape?"

In fact to define good as "it is good to command someone to kill their child" is a classic example of a circular definition because the phrase "it is good to command someone to kill their child" relies on a prior knowledge of the word "good" which is being defined.

Clearly you are quite confused about what a circular definition means.

What you mean by good.

I am quite clear that it is that which we ought to do

I think it is meaningless until you can explain what this objective way to live is.

Well, I don't think so.

Where you said this:

So you quoted this:

"Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it."

...and you got from it a demand to agree with me before proceeding. Well it is clear to everyone reading that you are simply lying. Anyone who can read can clearly see that I asked you whether you agree and if you don't, give logically coherent reasons why not. . . .Or maybe you read it as a compulsory demand to agree with me because you can't think of any logically coherent reason why it isn't true?

That is no a premise, that is your entire argument. Secondly, you've misquoted me. I did not say everyone needs to do a particular thing. Thirdly, if you understand that argument, you'll see that I've captured what you're saying. If you think I've misrepresented you, then you're welcome to clarify your statement.

I did not say that you said that everyone needs to do a particular thing. I said that you said that I said that everyone needs to do a particular thing. . . .and I am asking you to show how you got that from the statement you were responding to.

That is actually what you're saying when you're asking me to prove you wrong otherwise your point stands. So far, I've asked you to show that there is some objective way that we ought to live but so far, you've not done that. Instead you've started confusing yourself.

Lolololol....I never said prove me wrong otherwise my point stands. neither did I say that there is an objective way we ought to live. I said that "if there are objectively good and bad actions, then there is an objective way in which we ought to live". Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Even if there is no cosmic purpose for human existence, there can still be right ways for humans to live.

How can there be a right way for humans to live if there is no purpose for human existence? How exactly does that work?

I see you're on a 200 question roll. Let's simplify things by you saying whether or not it is evil to enslave other humans, to kill people at the whims of some other person or torture the vast majority of humans. Then we can take it a step at a time.

There is no point in answering this question if you keep refusing to answer whether or not it being evil to enslave humans means that we ought not to do it.

Since you know, why don't you tell me the correct sect of Christianity?

Since you systematically reject everyone who claims to know, why don't you read the gospels to find out for yourself? Or aren't you the skeptical one who investigates claims? Why so close-minded when it comes to finding out what true Christianity is?

I have an objective method of differentiating. Whether or not you accept it is up to you. After all, the evidence for evolution is objective but creationists and others don't accept it. As I said, I can tell whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Can you?

But drinking battery acid is not necessarily a moral problem unless you believe that all physical health issues are necessarily moral issues. Do you?

Again, I've answered your questions but so far, you've not answered any of my questions

Actually I have answered all your questions. The fact that you don't like my answers doesn't make them any less answers.

but you've tried to play 200 questions. That too won't work.

I haven't

You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying what you think "that which we ought to do" actually refers to with some actual examples. I've given you examples but you've tried to run from them. Try not to run and challenge your fears.

You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying whether or not you think "good is that which we ought to do" If you can't say whether or not you agree with the definition of what good is, then I don't know what you mean when you say for instance "is it good to enslave people". Try not to run and challenge your fears.