Although addressed to AJ777 & DAEMS, all are welcome to jump in. Remember, it is an “at your own risk” and the temperature is a nice balmy 15,923°C. Just ask AJ777 & DAEMS…
@ AJ777 & DAEMS
Two perfect questions proving your claims for “objective morality” and “objective truth” are false:
- Can you take a piece of paper and fold it “objectively” and “perfectly” and “absolutely” exactly in half?
- Can you take a glass and fill it “objectively” and “perfectly” and “absolutely” exactly half-full?
Then what makes you think there is such a thing as “perfect and absolute objective morality” and “perfect and absolute objective truth”?
Remember: I want nothing less than OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that can be tested by any person on these forum boards. Otherwise, just admit that you are wrong and lying.
rmfr
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
1. functionally yes. Objectivly NO.
2. Same
I am honored that you have started a new thread specifically for me (and AJ)!
I fail to see the value of this comparison, as your examples are formulated using physical objects, while morality is metaphysical. I do appreciate the examples though, and the answer to both questions is YES.
Although it may be unlikely, due to human error and the limits of our being, it is possible.
If a piece of paper is 10 inches long and 10 inches wide, you should fold it into to exact halves resulting in a 5 inch long and 10 inch wide paper.
If a glass holds exactly 10 ounces of water, then one would only have to fill the glass to 5 ounces to make it EMPIRICALLY and UNDENIABLY half full.
On a side note. You used the word "perfect" twice in this post. Can you prove EMPIRICALLY that this is, in fact, "two perfect questions" ?? Jk you don't have to do that. (shoot, just broke commandments 3 and 10)
I feel this must be trap, so I will wait to hear how I am wrong.
@ DAEMS
Here is the “razor” you wanted. However I would not call it razor.
Honored? Really? I just did it so it would not get lost at the end of a hyper-superlong thread.
Actually not, “YES.”
Actually you just answered ALL questions: “Unlikely due to human error and the limits of our being.” This makes it impossible for ANYONE to fold a sheet of paper exactly, perfectly, absolutely in half or fill a glass paper exactly, perfectly, absolutely half full. No matter how long you try, it shall never happen.
You mean you can get as close as you can possibly get but never fold the paper exactly, perfectly, absolutely folded in half.
As directly above except glass and water.
Yes, they are perfect because they actually show the futility of stating that “objective morality” and “objective truth” are just indefinable as the folding and filling “perfectly, absolutely, exactly” in half.
In a way it is a trap, but a much more difficult trap to define as an actual trap.
A true “trap” question is: Which weighs more, a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
Others who know the “weigh more” answer, please let DAEMS have a shot at it first...
rmfr
I’m sorry but I don’t agree. Why can’t we get it exact? I said it would hard but not impossible. You did not provide HARD EMIRICAL OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE as to why this is impossible.
If I were to measure down to the molecular level, I guarantee you would never be able to get it exact.
rmfr
"If I were to measure down to the molecular level, I guarantee you would never be able to get it exact."
This is not evidence, this is you're opinion.
Yes it is. Go fold a piece of paper in half, measure down to the molecular level and prove you folded it exactly, absolutely, perfectly in half. I would guarantee you would be off by a large margin.
Same with the half full glass of water. Even being one molecule off, you would not have filled the glass half full.
rmfr
haha you are really pushing this one, man. Take your own advice and admit it was a bad analogy and let's move on.
Anyway, I'm still failing to even see the relevance. Can you do me a favor and summarize the relationship between filling a glass half full-to the molecular level- and objective morality, and maybe I will understand what you're trying to illustrate. "less intelligent theist" here
@ DAEMS
Since you cannot fill a glass exactly, absolutely, perfectly half full, neither can anyone prove there is objective morality and/or objective truth.
rmfr
"morality is metaphysical."
Yet you claim there are moral absolutes, how then can you demonstrate evidence for this belief?
Could you list 3 moral absolutes for us please? Roughly how many are there and what objective evidence supports this claim?
"Yet you claim there are moral absolutes, how then can you demonstrate evidence for this belief?"
Metaphysical doesn't mean non-existent.
"Could you list 3 moral absolutes for us please? Roughly how many are there and what objective evidence supports this claim?"
I never said I knew what they were, just that they existed. That is why this conversation shouldn't be brushed over as easily as it has.
I asked ""Yet you claim there are moral absolutes, how then can you demonstrate evidence for this?"
You responded with a straw man that metaphysical doesn't mean non-existent? I never said it did I asked you to evidence the existence, one assumes then you cannot?
"
"Could you list 3 moral absolutes for us please? Roughly how many are there and what objective evidence supports this claim?"
I never said I knew what they were, just that they existed."
You're not being serious are you? You're claiming something exists, but you can't evidence it or even know of one example? That's just about the stupidest thing I've seen anyone claiming here.
"That is why this conversation shouldn't be brushed over as easily as it has."
A conversation about something you can't evidence and don't know of a single example? It should be pointed at and laughed at, loudly.
You're kidding right?
So you don't know what a morals absolute is? If you don't know what one is, then how can you say they exist.
“Two perfect questions proving your claims for “objective morality” and “objective truth” are false.”
Your question is not coherent. You want to prove that objective truth is false? You want to say it’s really true or objectively true that objective truth doesn’t exist. This is self defeating. In trying to prove your point, you have made the point that one view is true, the other is false.
lol I didn't even notice this, good point.
You forgot the dressing...
CyberLN's Razor: A nice vinaigrette dressing must be served with any word salad.
"In trying to prove your point, you have made the point that one view is true, the other is false."
And you are absolutely wrong. The two exercises prove something you cannot do. Period. Exclamation Point!
Since they also serve as analogies, they also prove that you CANNOT prove there is "objective morality" and objective truth."
And that is my new challenge to you AJ777.
Prove there is "objective morality" and objective truth."
Otherwise, two choices. Admit your were wrong all along and lied ever since you first came here, or leave and never come back.
Prove there is "objective morality" and objective truth."
All we have heard from you is a bunch bullshit lies and not one word of truth yet. I have even looked at your old posts from when you first came here. It amazes me how you cannot be ashamed to have done nothing but lie and deceive in everything you have posted. EVER!
rmfr
Wait, what about my answer Tree-man?? Use your razor on my comment too!
EDIT: Disregard this comment. I see below you have addressed me. Can't wait to read it!
EDIT: Disappointed with that comment. Anxiously waiting to see your response to my first post.
Trust me I am getting around to it. AJ777 did nothing but call me a liar. You at least tried to answer honestly.
rmfr
You cannot make a subjective claim for objective truth, that's axiomatic. So unless you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for your claim for objective morality your claim is facile and self negating.
What's more you can't even explain why you think it is immoral to torture a child, or explain why your opinion on this so drastically differs from the behaviour and opinion of your deity, shown again and again in your bible you claim is a moral guide.
If the bible must be subjectively interpreted using subjective context then it automatically cannot be an objective moral guide.
Why is it wrong to torture children? Until you can offer a cogent rational answer that demonstrates the claim is objectively true your morals encompasses a subjective opinion the same as atheists, yet you decry atheists and their morality for this. A fairly hypocritical stance and a special pleading fallacy when you claim a perfectly moral deity provides objective morality yet cannot list even one of these lest it show your deity subjectively breaks those moral rules.
Talk about wanting to have your cake, and eat it.
What objective evidence do you have that there are objective truth's? Can you tell me what an objective truth is.
Questions prove claims? What a dipwad. And you think it makes sense? This thread is going down the toilet pretty quickly.
Really? "Dipwad"?
"This thread is going down the toilet pretty quickly."
Well I'll see you in the sewers cause you're in here with us.
Statement 1: "Two perfect questions proving your claims for “objective morality” and “objective truth” are false:"
-asserts that objective truth is false.
Statement 2: "Remember: I want nothing less than OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that can be tested...."
-asserting objective truth must be used.
Nope, no questions here.
@ DAEMS
Yep, dipwad. Can also now be applied to you. Objective evidence is NOT objective truth. Dipwad. Go figure it out on your own.
And yep the assertion that objective truth is impossible (not false, you dipwad) has already been proven to the other dipwad in two other threads.
Remember, you probably are not as knowledgeable or as well educated as we are here. So far you proven that. ;-P And notice I did not say anything about being smarter.
You at least try to be honest. AJ777 is nothing more than a lying piece of septic tank flotsam.
rmfr
EDIT: Forgot a text smiley
"So far you proven that."
Ouch.
Oops. Sorry. Was typing so fast I forgot the “;-P”
Damn, I hate when I type a poopoo...
rmfr
Arakish, you said:
“ It amazes me how you cannot be ashamed to have done nothing but lie and deceive in everything you have posted. EVER!”
Nothing can be a lie if objective truth does not exist. Also, why do you exaggerate so much. If I did lie it’s probably not possible that 100% of all my posts are lies. Is my opinion a lie? Why are you so angry? I think maybe it’s time for me to stop responding to you because you appear to be irrational and emotional in your thinking. You appear to have an emotional problem with God. No amount of reasoning on my part can get through irrationality.
Objective truth and 100% certainty are not remotely the same thing.
Is it objectively true that the world is not flat? Now if you're a brain in a jar and the world and all reality is an illusion, can you be 100% certain of that objective fact?
Your apologetics is built on sand until you understand this distinction.
If I say your hair is green and your skin is orange, I'm I telling the truth or lying? Just proves I can lie about you, without having objective truth.
Who here has said they are the same thing?
Straw man again, and you have ignored my questions again. Ironic really given you are protesting at your posts being labelled mendacious. Your posts are very dishonest and this response couldn't more clearly indicate this. Create a straw man and ignore the content, it's what you always do.
Pages