How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Slavery

Post #3711

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:30 am Q: I agreed God is not said to be omniperfect in the Bible?
Q: Where?
Evidence for this claim.
Where we agree is we both assert God is not omniperfect.

As for omniperfect not being in the Bible, here's a word search for "omniperfect" in the Bible. It produced 0 results.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1
otseng wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 5:30 am But yes, I agree the Bible does not expressly prohibit chattel slavery. I'll state another thing I've never heard another apologist say - chattel slavery is not categorically morally wrong. There are actually instances were chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
They were considered morally acceptable by humans till there were not anymore: abolitionist movement-Civil War.
Then by your argument, if we turn back the clock, they did nothing morally wrong with having chattel slaves.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Slavery

Post #3712

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:45 am Where we agree is we both assert God is not omniperfect.
As for omniperfect not being in the Bible, here's a word search for "omniperfect" in the Bible. It produced 0 results.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1
Straw-man.
When I said the Bible said God is omni-perfect I meant it indirectly.
Like you did not knew this.
Out of desperation ridiculous arguments arise.

Like the Bible does not mentions word "omniscient" yet one can say the Bible does claim God is omniscient because "God is ... knows all things" means exactly that.


otseng wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:45 am Then by your argument, if we turn back the clock, they did nothing morally wrong with having chattel slaves.
Humans did not viewed chattel slaves as immoral back then.
Humans did viewed chattel slaves as immoral since abolitionist movement gain traction.
Including Christians. The Bible was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves or keep it. Because words can mean anything and what is truth can be bent to suit one's agenda.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: Objective moral values

Post #3713

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:35 am
boatsnguitars wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:24 pm
For judicial laws, why would they exist universally? If one country considered them to be acceptable, would that be OK?
OK according to whom? The country, the individuals those laws favor, God, me, you? I'm really not sure we are getting anywhere if you can't recognize the problem with this line of thinking.
Question is why would such judicial laws be similar for all countries? If one country said it's acceptable to kill all Jews, why should that be considered wrong?
All morals are subjective until they are proven to be Objective: what distinguishes an OMV?
Why not the opposite? All morals are objective until they are proven to be subjective.

Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures. Subjective morals would be limited to a particular time or culture or society.
What is it about OMVs that you can list?
Another diversionary tactic. We are talking about ethics, not physics.
For internal values, why ought they be considered to be wrong? If another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?
They are wrong to you, to your family, group, clan, State, country, etc.
You didn't answer my question. Again, if another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?
I'd offer that harm is the measure, but I know you disagree with that, which makes me worried for our future if Theists continue to develop our moral values.
More baseless opinions and personal accusations.
But, IMO, there are no OMVs and that we Moral Agents must put in the hard work to navigate the cold, uncaring universe the best we can.
If everything is subjective, then really there is no right and wrong moral behavior. Ultimately, what is considered right for one person can be considered wrong for another. What would be the factor is simply what the majority holds or something with authority dictates.
I believe in moral realism, which states that morals are independent of humans. Morals exist, even before humans started to exist. So morals are not decided by humans.
Cutting in front of the kid is wrong, even if there are no humans? Even if the kid is chatting with the cashier, and you are trying to buy life saving medicine for your child?

Seems it's absurd to me to consider anything absolutely wrong unless you make it situational.
You were the one that continually brought up arguments for moral realism. What do you think moral realism is?
I assume you meant OMV would have universal agreement.
Even with Universal agreement, that doesn't mean there are OMVs (it was universally agreed that human sacrifice was considered moral, or infanticide, slavery, rape, etc.
Right, universal agreement by itself does not mean it is objective. But if something is objective, it must have universal agreement.
My point is, one would expect an OMV to be obvious even if people didn't accept it.
I'm not so sure. If someone doesn't accept it, how could it then be obvious? If it was obvious, shouldn't they accept it?
Like it wasn't legal for a white and black person to marry: Maybe that's exactly what God wanted, but people disagreed - but we'd all look at the law and say, "But it's the law - God's law - Universal Law - Objective."
More spurious claims. Where does it say in the Bible a white and black person can not marry?
Like, if you try to cut in front of a kid at a store while trying to by a life-saving inhaler for your child, the universe simply stops you.
What you're suggesting is a universe that would be impossible to do anything morally wrong?
As for universal agreement, let's take slavery as an example. It was only recently in human history that slavery has been outlawed. So, prior to that, slavery was universally practiced and accepted. Does that mean slavery was morally right in the past?
Again, according to who? The Law? The slave? A person who didn't like slavery? God? The Universe?
Why keep on asking these things? All these questions are directed to you and simply asking for your position.
The best case I would make is that it was clear that it harms people, so if we tie morality to harm - yes, it was always wrong.
Then you're applying objective morality to say slavery is wrong since it was universally practiced and accepted in the past.
I'd love to know what measure you use? That God says so? I haven't heard God speak. Is he going to go on tour soon so we can see what he thinks?
What is the source of my morality? Ultimately God. God created all humans with a sense of morality. God also gave the Bible to codify proper behavior. It is summed up in the two greatest commandments.

[Mat 22:37-40 KJV] 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
This has reached the maximum point of absurdity. I can't understand why you don't understand any position that isn't your own, or, if you do, you seem to relish in trying to pretend you don't.

Then you end with a Bible verse, as if that means something to the conversation!

You only assert God is the source of OMVs, which you can't show. But, worse, you can't show his morals are OMVs. This is a laughable thread at this point.

You keep trying to do that age-old apologist dance of "But how can you say what's right or wrong if you don't have an objective measure!?"

I keep answering: According to whom? The law, the person being harmed, the group trying to harm the person, or some "God-Only-Knows" way.

You are clearly going with the latter which you can't support - at all. Not one inch.

I will repeat:
You can't know if God exists.
You can't know if God is a moral agent capable of policing morals.
You can't know if God would lay down Objective moral laws.

You can't even name one Objective Moral Law that we'd agree on - despite the fact that you (occasionally) agree that agreement doesn't mean a moral value is Objective or not.

I'm shocked you tried to define OMVs this late in the game ("Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures.") As if that wasn't what I was already addressing! I know that!

Look at your statement:
"Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures."

So which ones have applied to all times and cultures? That quote form the Bible written some 10,000 years after humanity arrived on the scene?! C'mon, man!
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Slavery

Post #3714

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:42 am
otseng wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:45 am Where we agree is we both assert God is not omniperfect.
As for omniperfect not being in the Bible, here's a word search for "omniperfect" in the Bible. It produced 0 results.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1
Straw-man.
When I said the Bible said God is omni-perfect I meant it indirectly.
What do you mean "indirectly"? What do you think a straw man argument is? If I don't have that position and I've supported evidence to back up my position, then you attacking a position I do not hold is a straw man argument.
Out of desperation ridiculous arguments arise.
I'll let readers judge who is the one making ridiculous arguments out of desperation.
Like the Bible does not mentions word "omniscient" yet one can say the Bible does claim God is omniscient because "God is ... knows all things" means exactly that.
Not the same thing. Sure, if omniscient means "knows all things", then I can accept God being omniscient.

However, what does omniperfect even mean and how is it different from being perfect? I've asked this many times before and you haven't provided an objective definition. You've even stated God is only "almost omniperfect" and not omniperfect.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 3:22 am
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:37 am Again, I agree God is perfect. But how are these things differentiating between perfect and omniperfect?
There could be logically a being that is perfect in all aspects but not omniscient.
That being is almost omniperfect.
Humans did not viewed chattel slaves as immoral back then.
Humans did viewed chattel slaves as immoral since abolitionist movement gain traction.
Exactly. So, our moral judgment on slavery is subjective. Since it is subjective, it is merely personal opinion and carries no ethical weight. Who knows, 100 years from now when the first global dictator takes over the world, he can make slavery legal and then we'll revert back to it being acceptable. They will then consider us to be wrong in the matter.
The Bible was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves or keep it.
If slavery is subjective, why should the Bible make any position on it? Again, you are taking an objectivist approach to claiming the Bible is unethical in regards to slavery. But you've already agreed slavery is subjective.
Because words can mean anything and what is truth can be bent to suit one's agenda.
Words can be bent in anything, it is not exclusive to the Bible.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Objective moral values

Post #3715

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 1:31 pm This has reached the maximum point of absurdity. I can't understand why you don't understand any position that isn't your own, or, if you do, you seem to relish in trying to pretend you don't.
More baseless personal accusations.
Then you end with a Bible verse, as if that means something to the conversation!
I'm simply backing up my position.
You only assert God is the source of OMVs, which you can't show. But, worse, you can't show his morals are OMVs.
I've presented my arguments and I'll let readers decide.
This is a laughable thread at this point.
More evidence you don't have any rational counter arguments, but just continually throw out uncivil comments.
You keep trying to do that age-old apologist dance of "But how can you say what's right or wrong if you don't have an objective measure!?"
Has there been any rational response from the skeptics on this?
I keep answering: According to whom? The law, the person being harmed, the group trying to harm the person, or some "God-Only-Knows" way.
And I keep answering according to you. It's just a simple exercise to explore the situations I've proposed.
I will repeat:
You can't know if God exists.
You can't know if God is a moral agent capable of policing morals.
You can't know if God would lay down Objective moral laws.
Repeating claims doesn't make it any more convincing.

Also, how do you know God does not exist? Especially in light of the fact I've produced numerous arguments for the existence of God, yet there has not been a single rational argument to support no gods existing.

Why throw out "policing morals"? Nobody has been talking about that.

God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation.

"Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
You can't even name one Objective Moral Law that we'd agree on - despite the fact that you (occasionally) agree that agreement doesn't mean a moral value is Objective or not.
You don't agree the items I listed are objective? If not, do you agree they are subjective?
I'm shocked you tried to define OMVs this late in the game ("Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures.") As if that wasn't what I was already addressing! I know that!
If you knew, then why did you ask, "what distinguishes an OMV?"

As for objective moral applying universally, I've already mentioned it in my argument for the objective morality of Christianity:
otseng wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2023 8:22 am Objective morality would have to apply to all people at all times at all locations. Since God is the creator of all and above time and he is the source of morality and goodness, then the morality instilled in us as image bearers of God would make it objective.

This would even be true before any religious texts have been written (like the Torah). People would have an objective sense of morality before any followers wrote any books.
So which ones have applied to all times and cultures?

Look at your statement:
"Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures."

So which ones have applied to all times and cultures?
That's why I've presented my list, multiple times actually. If OMV do not exist, then what you're saying is everything I listed must be subjective. Do you agree they are all subjective (according to you)?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Hume's law - "is-ought problem"

Post #3716

Post by otseng »

Hume's law states normative statements cannot be logically deduced from descriptive statements. This is the "is-ought problem".
The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive (or descriptive) statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently transition from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred from purely descriptive factual statements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Hume’s idea seems to be that you cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent. The passage is summed up in the slogan ‘No-Ought-From-Is’ (or NOFI for short) and for many people it represents the take-home message of Hume’s moral philosophy. It is sometimes rather grandly referred to as Hume’s Law.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Hum ... _and_Ought
The is-ought problem has become prominent in matters of ethics and meta-ethics. Simply put, it deals with an apparent logic gap between statements of what "ought" to be, following statements regarding what "is" — the first often following the second without any kind of explanation regarding why they are logical or correct.

Furthermore, it argues that just because someone has knowledge of how the world is (descriptive statements), this doesn't automatically prove that they know how the world ought to be (prescriptive statements), and it is in fact impossible to derive the second based solely on the information of the first.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

A fundamental assumption is the mind must be explained from a materialistic, empiricist position.
He was convinced that the only way to improve philosophy was to make the investigation of human nature central—and empirical (HL 3.2).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume ... tml#AccMin

Given a naturalistic position, there is no deductive line of reasoning to arrive at an "ought" from an "is".
Hume famously closes the section of the Treatise that argues against moral rationalism by observing that other systems of moral philosophy, proceeding in the ordinary way of reasoning, at some point make an unremarked transition from premises whose parts are linked only by “is” to conclusions whose parts are linked by “ought” (expressing a new relation) — a deduction that seems to Hume “altogether inconceivable”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io

The corollary of the is-ought problem is normative ethics cannot be rationally formulated from a naturalistic position.
According to the dominant twentieth-century interpretation, Hume says here that no ought-judgment may be correctly inferred from a set of premises expressed only in terms of ‘is,’ and the vulgar systems of morality commit this logical fallacy. This is usually thought to mean something much more general: that no ethical or indeed evaluative conclusion whatsoever may be validly inferred from any set of purely factual premises.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io

Sam Harris is one of the few people who have tried to solve this problem. I addressed his argument in Sam Harris – The Moral Landscape.

Another corollary to the is-ought problem is the naturalistic fallacy.
In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

he term naturalistic fallacy is sometimes used to describe the deduction of an ought from an is (the is–ought problem). This usually takes the form of saying that If people do something (e.g., eat three times a day, smoke cigarettes, dress warmly in cold weather), then people ought to do that thing. It becomes a naturalistic fallacy when the is–ought problem ("People eat three times a day, so it is morally good for people to eat three times a day") is justified by claiming that whatever practice exists is a natural one ("because eating three times a day is pleasant and desirable").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

The inverse of deriving an "is" from an "ought" is the moralistic fallacy.
The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that an aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then Z would happen! Thus, X is false", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. The moralistic fallacy is sometimes presented as the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.

Steven Pinker writes that "[t]he naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK)." Pinker goes on to explain that "[t]he moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy

These fallacies support the idea that science cannot explain human morality. Science can explain how the world "is". But it cannot explain how the world "ought".
Natural science can help humans understand the natural world, but it cannot make policy, moral, or behavioral decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy

The is-ought problem also leads to non-cognitivism and it's impossible to have any claim of moral knowledge.
Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e., statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt). A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world". If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

User avatar
Masterblaster
Sage
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #3717

Post by Masterblaster »

Hello otseng
You say - "God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation. "Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
----------
Allow me to make observations on this and allow me also to seek clarification of your use of this quote.

- you use the opinion of an atheist to make your religious point

- you suggest that the phrase 'supernatural' ,that is contained within this person's quote, is pertinent to your point of illumination to us here. Why is that so?
What connotations does this extremely vague term hold for you?

That is two simple questions, and that is before we attempt to assimilate the wildcard that is your God. Thanks.
'Love God with all you have and love others in the same way.'

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #3718

Post by otseng »

Masterblaster wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 7:33 am Hello otseng
You say - "God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation. "Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
----------
Allow me to make observations on this and allow me also to seek clarification of your use of this quote.

- you use the opinion of an atheist to make your religious point
A majority of my sources are from secular sources. This quote was also from a secular source.
- you suggest that the phrase 'supernatural' ,that is contained within this person's quote, is pertinent to your point of illumination to us here. Why is that so? What connotations does this extremely vague term hold for you?
It supports my claim that God is the source of objective morality and atheism cannot account for objective morality. Do you believe atheism can justify objective morality?

User avatar
Masterblaster
Sage
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #3719

Post by Masterblaster »

otseng wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 7:44 am
Masterblaster wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 7:33 am Hello otseng
You say - "God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation. "Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
----------
Allow me to make observations on this and allow me also to seek clarification of your use of this quote.

- you use the opinion of an atheist to make your religious point
A majority of my sources are from secular sources. This quote was also from a secular source.
- you suggest that the phrase 'supernatural' ,that is contained within this person's quote, is pertinent to your point of illumination to us here. Why is that so? What connotations does this extremely vague term hold for you?
It supports my claim that God is the source of objective morality and atheism cannot account for objective morality. Do you believe atheism can justify objective morality?
Hello otseng
Super natural, by it's Latin origins means ' above nature'. It's true use is found within comparison, ie this phenomena is now above nature and it is ,by inference, superior to same.
That is why this atheist's use of the word, is indeed supportive of your argument. The problem with this linguistic logic is that you made the subjective call of superiority of God over nature by integrating this borrowed phrase into your unfurling illumination to us all. You arbitrarily decided to put your God over and above the natural world, which is a recurring Eden theme in your doctrine.

You ask - ". Do you believe atheism can justify objective morality?"

Answer - "Why not.?.Yes"
'Love God with all you have and love others in the same way.'

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: Objective moral values

Post #3720

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 7:39 am That's why I've presented my list, multiple times actually. If OMV do not exist, then what you're saying is everything I listed must be subjective. Do you agree they are all subjective (according to you)?
Round and round we go... I've answered your question multiple times - so why keep asking?

1. You are asking my opinion. I thought agreement wasn't the defining characteristic of OMVs so why ask?
2. According to whom are they wrong? Me? Sure, no, yes, maybe, depends. What does it matter to a discussion about whether there are OMVs?
If there are no OMVs, aren't they all Subjective whether I or you like it or not?!
If there are OMVs, are you claiming that if I feel they are Subjective, you can prove they aren't?!
3. Is Jimi Hendrix the greatest guitarist ever? Is there a Objective "Best Guitarist"? Maybe there is - and if I were to claim it, I'd be responsible for backing it up - whether you feel Jimi is or isn't the greatest guitarist ever.

Again, this is getting outlandishly absurd.

4. But, I notice a slight difference: You said, "Do you agree" - do you mean you agree they are all Subjective? Or, did you add "(according to you)" in order to ask if I agree with myself?

I have said I feel morals are all Subjective. I don't have omniscience to know if there is a God and which rules he has written into the Universe for us to adhere to. Do you?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Post Reply