Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 272 by arian]

Appreciate your nice opinions, but you lack substance (facts).

Thanks, .. but how will you recognize facts I present to you without your subjective opinions standing in the way? We have to establish facts first and base them as absolutes. You know, like this UN Resolution Agenda 21 I mentioned; representatives from 120 some nations came together to decide on the fate of the entire world, and I don't remember being invited, or asked for my opinion on it?

These 120, from 7.2 billion people decided on and established an objective plan for sustainable development for the human race, including what they believe should be our moral objective values in every aspect of our lives, including what we eat, how much we eat, what we learn, what to teach our kids, what jobs we should have, where we should live, whether or not we should live, .. it is comprehensive, it is absolute, .. which we can't seem to establish here on this forum? How did these 120 representatives do it I wonder? This may hold the answer for the OP!?!

In my humble and unheard opinion, we don't have a problem with overpopulation, the problem we do have is with the populations moral objective values. The people don't know or even define what moral objective value is, and I guess this is another reason they came up with Agenda 21 for the nations, .. it explains to them everything without any subjective input.

If your god decreed rape and murder as 'not wrong', would you agree?

1. You see, .. you said "your god" when in the objective it is "our God".

Now of course you will without even considering my definition of God/fact, which by the way is not by religious indoctrination but by established unwavering faith, .. another word my belief in 'our God' is both philosophically and scientifically established FACT, .. and you can simply say: "Your God doesn't exist"
If you can't even make an honest effort in knowing the truth about 'our God' without allowing to be influenced by your subjective personal feelings and opinions, then what exactly is your understanding of "objective"?

I can explain the existence of our Creator God, and yet you (or anyone) could subjectively say; "No he, .. or she, .. or it don't exist". So what is FACT if you refuse to agree with me on it because of your personal feelings and opinions?
You guys say: "The Bible is an old storybook of fairytales made up of ignorant superstitious tribesmen!" So what is your opinions on the Book Agenda 21?

This is why I explained the FACT that God exists outside of human opinion. So if God tells us that killing our children is wrong, and then He tells Abraham to sacrifice his son for him, it is still absolute. Why? Because everything God does is for our benefit, for our evolution back to image we were created in. People in Abrahams time were sacrificing their children to other man-made gods, so God tested the faith of Abraham His servant if he would be willing to kill his own son for The Creator, like other pagans do for their created gods? What is wrong with that?

The Old Testament was evolution of fallen man by experience through laws and consequences. After the Messiah came, He explained all this to us, by revealing Gods love for us in His Sons sacrificial death.

But nothing I say matters if you are unable to establish 'facts', .. or 'absolutes'. If you can't define 'absolute good' or recognize the difference between good and evil, how would you define moral objective values? No wonder so many of you support this evil Agenda 21 initiative.

Appreciate your nice opinions, but you lack substance (facts).
Not only that, you completely forgot to answer my question:
If your god decreed rape and murder as 'not wrong', would you agree?

That is a simple YES or NO answer.

[10CC]

1. You see, .. you said "your god" when in the objective it is "our God".

Since man claims the existence of millions of gods how can your god objectively be our god?

[JohnA]

.

Oh, I can be very confident in my opinion - confident enough to resort to violence to enforce it.

How is this any different from the Muslims being confident in their opinions - confident enough to resort to flying planes into buildings to enforce it.

Based on your definition of 'wrong', can you now tell us how do you know the Holocaust would be wrong if your god decreed it 'not wrong'?

Based on your definition of 'wrong', can you now tell us how do you know the Muslims flying planed into building would be wrong if your god decreed it 'not wrong'?

[help3434]

.

You apologize yet you keep on doing it. Do you still want to maintain that you are innocence against my accusation re: backhand implication that those who don't accept moral objectivism think the Holocaust was fine?

If a person is going to deny that there is a right and wrong, then why would everything not be fine?

Who is denying there is a right and wrong?

[olavisjo]

.

not your inference of "in the best physical shape".

Where did I say "in the best physical shape"?

[Bust Nak]

If a person is going to deny that there is a right and wrong, then why would everything not be fine?

*faceplam* YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN! You are doing the very thing you were denying of doing.

Compare it to this...

It's not hard for us at all. It's really simple to prove the world is flat under scientific subjectivism, because it is simply a matter of opinion. My personal testimoney that I think the world is flat, is more than enough to prove that I do indeed think the the world is flat; and what I think is flat, is flat.

Take it up with those who subscribe to "scientific subjectivism." I can't see any scientific subjectivist here, can you?

How is this any different from the Muslims being confident in their opinions - confident enough to resort to flying planes into buildings to enforce it.

Just the details/specifics. You ask that like your position is any different from the from the Muslims who know it is objectively right to fly planes into buildings.

[olavisjo]

.

Who is denying there is a right and wrong?

Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an actual right or wrong.

[Bust Nak]

Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an actual right or wrong.

Correction: Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an objective right or wrong. You have yet to demostrate that your vision on right and wrong is actual. If moral is subjective, then it would be you who is denying the actual right or wrong.

[olavisjo]

.

Correction: Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an objective right or wrong. You have yet to demostrate that your vision on right and wrong is actual. If moral is subjective, then it would be you who is denying the actual right or wrong.

The subjectivist position is that there is no actual right or wrong, subjective opinion rules the day, whatever you think is right and wrong, is right and wrong, so there is no actual right and wrong.

Is this not what you mean by subjectivism? If not, I am all ears.

[Bust Nak]

The subjectivist position is that there is no actual right or wrong, subjective opinion rules the day, whatever you think is right and wrong, is right and wrong, so there is no actual right and wrong.

Is this not what you mean by subjectivism? If not, I am all ears.

Alright, here goes. The subjectivist position is that there is no objective right or wrong, subjective opinion rules the day, whatever you think is right and wrong, is actually right and wrong, so there is an actual right and wrong.