Theists, Some Vexing Follow-up Questions?.?.?

[POI]

In a recent topic ---- > here (viewtopic.php?t=38559&start=60), I posed the following question:

"when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or, god himself?"

Placing this into context, the interlocutor argues that God's moral don't change, but the assigned punishment does --- for whatever reason (undefined).... The above question has yet to be answered or addressed by my debate opponent. So I thought I would offer it here.

For debate:

1) Let's suppose God's morals do not change. Okay, great... Then why in the heck does god command that a priest's daughter is to be burned to death, if she loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father, with NO caveats?

2) If there exists caveats, why are they not mentioned?

3) Was this command ultimately issued/inspired by God, or humans? And how do you know?

4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

5) How can you distinguish if any passages, at all, are inspired by any god?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #130]

You already admitted as to why you will not allow yourself to be convinced.

Copy/Paste: "We theists are not willing to pay the cost of believing right and wrong are merely feelings."
Therefore, you will not allow yourself to be convinced.

These are unrelated points. I am not allowing myself to be convinced of subjective morals. I can still be convinced that God doesn't answer prayers. One could offer a convincing view that grounds objective morals but without God.

To clarify. If your god is proven false, you lose purpose, a place to go when you die and most importantly for you, the idea that right/wrong doesn't come from the gods.

Like I have already pointed out, there are other metaphysics that are not natural that can ground morals but not end up with God.

If your god concept is shown to be true, I lose nothing by accepting it as a god and quite frankly would want to know more about it?

This isn't true. You lose a lot of things, such as the freedom to feel comfortable doing whatever you want in life. Without God, there is no reason to think there is some consequence for your actions that extends beyond this life.

I realize that POI's words were not convincing to you, but I also understand why they are not allowed to convince.

I have shown how that is not true. It would be very difficult to convince me of metaphysical naturalism, but not as hard to convince me of a metaphysic that is without God. If the arguments are strong enough, I would have to change my mind.

[Clownboat]

These are unrelated points.

They are related though. The gods (or god) supply you with objective morals. You are not willing to pay the cost of believing right and wrong are merely feelings, therefore you employ a god to supply you with what you desire. That being that right and wrong are not merely feelings.

I am not allowing myself to be convinced of subjective morals.

We know. Addressed above as to why you do not allow yourself.

I can still be convinced that God doesn't answer prayers.

Ok?

One could offer a convincing view that grounds objective morals but without God.

You are hung up on the need for them to be objective. You made your bed, you are now sleeping in it.

Like I have already pointed out, there are other metaphysics that are not natural that can ground morals but not end up with God.

This has nothing to do with what you lose if the god concept you accepts as being true were to be proven false. That we can ground morals and not end up with a god is not interesting and should be something already understood.

This isn't true. You lose a lot of things, such as the freedom to feel comfortable doing whatever you want in life.

You are mistaken in your belief that I have freedom to feel comfortable doing whatever I want in life. There are plenty of things I would not be comfortable doing. Therefore you are wrong and should amend your thinking, but will you?

Without God, there is no reason to think there is some consequence for your actions that extends beyond this life.

Correct, without believing in one of our available god concepts, there would be no reason to even assume a life beyond this one in the first place. Do you know what point you are trying to make? I ask, because with or without a god, our actions on this planet do in fact have consequences. You just bring up some unevidenced extension that you allude to being beyond this life. That is not impressive or needed from where I sit anyway.

It would be very difficult to convince me of metaphysical naturalism, but not as hard to convince me of a metaphysic that is without God.

I care not to convince you. I objected to you claiming objective morals and how you claimed that I cannot say that rape is wrong. Your metaphysics, extrinsic, and intrinsic distraction are just that. Distracting from the point that claiming to have objective morals on this planet was shown to be false. You seem to want to focus on why you believe as you do, as to that, I care not. I object to there being objective morals and provided evidence as to why, if or why you believe in a god is on you.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #132]

You are mistaken in your belief that I have freedom to feel comfortable doing whatever I want in life. There are plenty of things I would not be comfortable doing. Therefore you are wrong and should amend your thinking, but will you?

No problem. I can change it to, you would lose the freedom of thinking you will not be judged and held accountable for all your actions after you die.

Correct, without believing in one of our available god concepts, there would be no reason to even assume a life beyond this one in the first place. Do you know what point you are trying to make? I ask, because with or without a god, our actions on this planet do in fact have consequences. You just bring up some unevidenced extension that you allude to being beyond this life. That is not impressive or needed from where I sit anyway.

I am showing you that no matter what you believe, I can show you that you will be losing something if you no longer believe it. Everything you have to said me also applies to you. You accept natural, so that is the bed you sleep in, and so on. These are not really points for or against God existing.

Distracting from the point that claiming to have objective morals on this planet was shown to be false.

When do you think that happened? In order to show objective morality is false, you have to show it to be a contradiction, or you must show something contrary being true, which you haven't done. No one has ever proven that morals are subjective. Stating your feelings on the issue isn't even evidence. Your inner experience points you in the direction that rape is actually wrong, yet you cannot accept it. You ignore it and think, well, I am a naturalists so that cannot be true, thus if someone claims rape is wrong, it is a subjective opinion. That is not evidence it is, though.

It is like when a determinist tries to tell me that I don't have freewill. I think, okay, but I know I have freewill. It is self-evident. I experience it.

[Clownboat]

No problem. I can change it to, you would lose the freedom of thinking you will not be judged and held accountable for all your actions after you die.

Well done. I appreciate the amendment!
Now, besides for the religions we have on this planet, that seem to be of human invention, why would anyone think there is anything after death? Do you remember what it was like before you were born? Why would death not be the same experience? Why insert a judging god concept to get us or reward us after we die? Especially when humans have invented so many competing ideas about the gods that cause all sorts of death and division. Seems like a negative mechanism to employ just so a person can hold the belief that there is judgment after death.

I am showing you that no matter what you believe, I can show you that you will be losing something if you no longer believe it.

tau·tol·o·gy
noun
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style.

Everything you have to said me also applies to you. You accept natural, so that is the bed you sleep in, and so on.

Don't be silly now. You also accept the natural. Every human does, so yes, we all sleep in that bed. Adding a bed, such as, 'fairies created our universe' is to add a bed/assumption that has yet to be shown as factual. The natural is factual (not claiming natural is all there is now keep in mind).

Yes, I accept the natural as it seems to explain the world around us. I am open to the supernatural though and quite frankly would want to know more about it if it is a real thing. I have no 'desire' for natural explanations and will accept supernatural ones if they have better explanitory power. We all accept the natural at least to a degree. Do you not assume the supernatural? <---- This would affect how such things apply to us both.

Distracting from the point that claiming to have objective morals on this planet was shown to be false.

When do you think that happened?

When you failed to evidence such a claim.

In order to show objective morality is false, you have to show it to be a contradiction,

Rape is universaly/objectively wrong, except when it isn't.
ob·jec·tive·ly
adverb
in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually.

Most people agree that rape is wrong. There are societies however that have forms of rape integrated in to them and in such cases, that rape is acceptable. It is their personal feelings/opinions due to the society that they live in that makes it acceptable. There is not some external thing universaly making rape right or wrong.

No one has ever proven that morals are subjective.

What has not been shown to be true is the claim that rape is objectively wrong universaly.

Your inner experience points you in the direction that rape is actually wrong, yet you cannot accept it.

Nope, time to amend your thinking again. I do in fact claim that I believe rape is wrong. I acknowledge that there are societies that disagree with me, which gets us back to it being objectively wrong or not.
Altruism and the golden rule are enough for me. I don't require a god for example to know that I find rape to be undesirable for societies.

You ignore it and think, well, I am a naturalists so that cannot be true,

More amending needed. I'm not strictly a naturalist as I'm open to the supernatural if it or its affects on our world can be demonstrated.

thus if someone claims rape is wrong, it is a subjective opinion.

Let's not bring in opinions. Rape being wrong is subjective due to the cases where it is accepted. Therefore, it is not objectively wrong. How else would the Etoro young males achieve adult male status and properly mature and grow strong if they haven't injested the semen of their elders afterall? This is part of their culture and for them is not wrong. They might find that it is you that is wrong in this instance.

[POI]

No one has ever proven that morals are subjective.

As demonstrated, time and time again, you can (no more) objectify what is right/wrong --- than you can objectify what is or who is --> high/low, tall/short, rich/poor, attractive / not attractive, delicious/disgusting, etc.... Deal with it!

Stating your feelings on the issue isn't even evidence.

I find this response quite ironic, coming from someone who states 'rape is wrong" --- is 'objective' ---> and bases this 'objectivity' upon a 'strong inclination'. While stating what you just stated above.

What actually makes the statement of "rape is wrong' OBJECTIVE? Your personal gut reaction, or strong feelings, no matter how 'powerful' they feel to you, no more objectifies your statement, than it does for countless of other statements.

Further, you never addressed my repeated observation, as it relates to God not seeming to share the same sediments on rape, as you. So maybe you might want to define what is and is not considered "rape"?

It is like when a determinist tries to tell me that I don't have freewill. I think, okay, but I know I have freewill. It is self-evident. I experience it.

This statement seems worthy of a new topic. Consider it done.... ---> viewtopic.php?t=40197

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #135]

As demonstrated, time and time again, you can (no more) objectify what is right/wrong --- than you can objectify what is or who is --> high/low, tall/short, rich/poor, attractive / not attractive, delicious/disgusting, etc.... Deal with it!

My experience disagrees with this. It is like you trying to tell me I don't have freewill. I am positive I do, which is how I am typing this right now.

I find this response quite ironic, coming from someone who states 'rape is wrong" --- is 'objective' ---> and bases this 'objectivity' upon a 'strong inclination'. While stating what you just stated above.

Yes, because this strong inclination is knowing a priori.

What actually makes the statement of "rape is wrong' OBJECTIVE? Your personal gut reaction, or strong feelings, no matter how 'powerful' they feel to you, no more objectifies your statement, than it does for countless of other statements.

No. Feelings are not knowing a priori. We know rape is wrong. If you have the experience I do, which I cannot be sure you do, then you also know rape is wrong, but your let your naturalism get in the way of your knowing.

Further, you never addressed my repeated observation, as it relates to God not seeming to share the same sediments on rape, as you. So maybe you might want to define what is and is not considered "rape"?

God agrees that rape is always wrong. It is how we know.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #135]

As demonstrated, time and time again, you can (no more) objectify what is right/wrong --- than you can objectify what is or who is --> high/low, tall/short, rich/poor, attractive / not attractive, delicious/disgusting, etc.... Deal with it!

My experience disagrees with this. It is like you trying to tell me I don't have freewill. I am positive I do, which is how I am typing this right now.

I find this response quite ironic, coming from someone who states 'rape is wrong" --- is 'objective' ---> and bases this 'objectivity' upon a 'strong inclination'. While stating what you just stated above.

Yes, because this strong inclination is knowing a priori.

What actually makes the statement of "rape is wrong' OBJECTIVE? Your personal gut reaction, or strong feelings, no matter how 'powerful' they feel to you, no more objectifies your statement, than it does for countless of other statements.

No. Feelings are not knowing a priori. We know rape is wrong. If you have the experience I do, which I cannot be sure you do, then you also know rape is wrong, but your let your naturalism get in the way of your knowing.

Further, you never addressed my repeated observation, as it relates to God not seeming to share the same sediments on rape, as you. So maybe you might want to define what is and is not considered "rape"?

God agrees that rape is always wrong. It is how we know.

1) Please demonstrate the following: strong inclination = objective?

2) You still are not picking up what I have been laying down. There exists many topics, where many will have very strong inclinations about. Does this mean these too are objective? (i.e.) What is attractive vs. unattractive, what is too hot vs. too cold, what is too tall vs. too short, what tastes good vs. tastes bad, what animals are okay to kill for food vs. not, does economics have an objective standard, what is the correct political position on a given topic, how much should I tip a waiter, is it ever okay to abort a fetus, etc....

3) God does not appear to have the same strong inclination about "rape", as you do.

4) Please define what is considered 'rape' exactly?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #137]

1) Please demonstrate the following: strong inclination = objective?

My knowing a priori that rape is wrong cannot be demonstrated objectively, just as I cannot objectively demonstrate that you have any inner experiences. I assume that because you seem to be the same type of being that I am, that we share similar inner experiences, but perhaps, I am wrong. Perhaps, you have no inner experiences. Perhaps, you have no awareness at all and make no choices. Perhaps you are like a biological robot that only acts and does what you are biologically programmed to do and say.

But if you are like me, then you also have a knowing that rape is wrong and you have inner experiences. You are aware of making choices that you could have chosen not to make.

I could be wrong about you, but I don't see how I can be wrong about me.

2) You still are not picking up what I have been laying down. There exists many topics, where many will have very strong inclinations about. Does this mean these too are objective? (i.e.) What is attractive vs. unattractive, what is too hot vs. too cold, what is too tall vs. too short, what tastes good vs. tastes bad, what animals are okay to kill for food vs. not, does economics have an objective standard, what is the correct political position on a given topic, how much should I tip a waiter, is it ever okay to abort a fetus, etc....

This makes me wonder if you share any similar inner experiences that I have. Why would economics even be compared to the knowing rape is wrong? I know rape is wrong without ever learning it. I don't know economics until I learn it. Economics is without argumentation knowledge a posterior.

What we find attractive or beautiful is not knowledge. What we find hot or cold is a posteriori. We must learn it by the senses. Same with too tall or short, we learn it via the senses, same with taste.

What animals are okay to kill for food. This can be understood in more than one way. If it means what animals are safe to eat, we learn via the senses. If it is about the morality of what animals are okay to kill for food, we can know a priori.

3) God does not appear to have the same strong inclination about "rape", as you do.

Don't worry, he does. I am sure this comes down to your atheistic interpretation of some OT verse.

4) Please define what is considered 'rape' exactly?

To have sex with someone against their will.

[POI]

My knowing a priori that rape is wrong cannot be demonstrated objectively, just as I cannot objectively demonstrate that you have any inner experiences. I assume that because you seem to be the same type of being that I am, that we share similar inner experiences, but perhaps, I am wrong. Perhaps, you have no inner experiences. Perhaps, you have no awareness at all and make no choices. Perhaps you are like a biological robot that only acts and does what you are biologically programmed to do and say.

But if you are like me, then you also have a knowing that rape is wrong and you have inner experiences. You are aware of making choices that you could have chosen not to make.

I could be wrong about you, but I don't see how I can be wrong about me.

Absolutely nothing in this response 'justifies' or demonstrates that a strong inclination = objectivity. So why is the statement 'rape is wrong' objective?

This makes me wonder if you share any similar inner experiences that I have. Why would economics even be compared to the knowing rape is wrong? I know rape is wrong without ever learning it. I don't know economics until I learn it. Economics is without argumentation knowledge a posterior.

What we find attractive or beautiful is not knowledge. What we find hot or cold is a posteriori. We must learn it by the senses. Same with too tall or short, we learn it via the senses, same with taste.

What animals are okay to kill for food. This can be understood in more than one way. If it means what animals are safe to eat, we learn via the senses. If it is about the morality of what animals are okay to kill for food, we can know a priori.

You can have 'strong inclinations' about all sorts of stuff, outside the realm for the topic of morality. This is the point you seem to continue missing. I'll give you two examples:

1) Pilots are taught to trust their gauges above and beyond their own 'strong inclinations' for direction. And remember, a pilot's life is on the line, if they should sometimes trust their own faculties over the gauges.

2) You seemed to mention 'Cosmic Skeptic" a few times. Thus, I trust you are aware he is a vegan. I trust you are also aware he likely has very 'strong inclinations' to not kill animals for our consumption. And yet, I'm willing to bet you and I may not feel exactly the same?

Like the video states, which you either refused to watch, or did watch and IGNORED. 1 billion strong opinions about murdering babies, or in your case, 'strong inclinations', does not make murdering babies now objectively wrong.

Please demonstrate how you can, any more, objectify MORALS, than you can with any of the other topics mentioned?

Don't worry, he does. I am sure this comes down to your atheistic interpretation of some OT verse.

Oh, I'm not worried. But I can read, just like you can God looks to sanction rape. This is something you would never do. So why not change your tune and adopt God's position?

To have sex with someone against their will.

Seems like you and your believed upon god probably don't agree then.

[POI]

I am sure this comes down to your atheistic interpretation of some OT verse.

I had to add a second response here.... It is people like you, for which videos like this have been made: