How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[boatsnguitars]

I haven’t defined it in a way to avoid any burden of proof. I’m questioning how strictly you limit the means of proof. Your limitation on how to test knowledge is self-defeating. Therefore, it’s not a rational limitation on how to test knowledge. That shows that the means of proof is wider than you want to allow and it’s under that logically wider means that I take on the burden of proof.

What means of proof are you suggesting? Your words. You said I'm limiting the means of proof. What means of proof aren't I allowing?

Personally, I think you know you are a running one long smoke screen to avoid the obvious: that the supernatural doesn't exist.

I expect your "means of proof" is going to be that I "really have to want to believe and have to reach out to God to desperately know him and know his love." Is that really a means of proof? No.

So, I'll ask again - knowing you have nothing: what is your positive definition of the supernatural, and what "means of proof" do I need to employ to prove it?

Just tell me when you've had enough.

Would anyone else like to try to define the supernatural? How to detect it? Explain how it manifests in Reality? How it affects Matter but - magically - can't be detected by Matter? What it's units are: Joules or Jesus's? How it is employed by someone?

Heck, Otseng says the Supernatural can burn a shroud kinda like electricity or ozone(?) - yet it can't be detected? C'mon!

When will Supernaturalists realize they are being conned?

[The Tanager]

You haven't defined it into two categories - because you don't know what "it" is.

You've said the "supernatural is immaterial" - how do you know? Just by definition? And it's not two categories. It's one: "Things that exist" - yet, you can't know if it exists or not.

So draw a Venn diagram. Draw a circle. This is everything that exists. Draw a dot inside of it. This is everything that is Bush. Everything else in that circle is, indeed something else.

What you can't even tell us is whether the thing you claim isn't Bush exists or not - Because you don't even know what it is. You don't even know if it actually is Bush. You don't know of the "Supernatural" as you call it is some unknown Material process. This is how little you know about it.

It's just a word to you. "Supernatural" So easy to say, and add a lot of words to it to make you sound like you're saying something about it, but you aren't. Anymore than a person going into great detail about the mating habits of Unicorns. Or the magical properties of pixies.

You're done.

No, I’m saying that the “it” we’ve defined into two categories is “reality”. You can do that with positively and negatively defined words. GWBJrs and non-GWBJrs is one categorization that makes perfect sense. Then we give arguments as to whether each category has actually existing things in it. Theoretically, it’s possible that the non-GWBJrs category has no actually existing members, say, if we are all a figment of George W Bush Jr.’s imagination. But we have philosophical arguments using scientific and historical data against that.

Another categorization that makes perfect sense in exactly the same way is dividing reality into natural and non-natural (i.e., supernatural). These are perfectly understandable categories. Then we give arguments as to whether there are any actual things in the each category.

(a) The definition of something and (b) whether that something (or something in that category) exists are two different questions. Your critique was that we can’t know (b) if the supernatural exists because (a) we don’t even have a definition of supernatural. But we do have a definition of it. Your critique is that a negative definition isn’t an actual definition, but it is. If it isn’t then you couldn’t understand what it means to be a non-George W. Bush Jr., but you know you understand what that means. Therefore, your critique about how negatively defining ‘supernatural’ makes me done is obviously flawed. Since the definitions work, we can then set about to see if any arguments show the existence of something within the supernatural category. If you want to argue for unicorns or pixies being in that category, go ahead, I’ll argue for what I think there is reason to argue for. The cases for each will depend on their own merits and demerits.

So, either you have a rational response to how negative definitions still don't count, taking into account what I've just shared or drop the critique. If you simply restate that negative definitions don't count, then you are showing that you are done with a rational discussion on this. If you will finally admit your critique here holds no weight, then we can return to the two other critiques you made but haven't returned to since you thought there was something behind the “negative definitions aren’t definitions” critique:

(1) [This is the “means of proof” I was talking about you limiting.] Why should someone believe that science is a necessary element of any knowledge of reality? There isn’t science to back that knowledge claim up.

(2) Why is it logically impossible for a non-natural thing to impact the natural world to where its natural effects could be detected by natural means, but that the cause itself couldn’t be detected by natural means?

[boatsnguitars]

You haven't defined it into two categories - because you don't know what "it" is.

You've said the "supernatural is immaterial" - how do you know? Just by definition? And it's not two categories. It's one: "Things that exist" - yet, you can't know if it exists or not.

So draw a Venn diagram. Draw a circle. This is everything that exists. Draw a dot inside of it. This is everything that is Bush. Everything else in that circle is, indeed something else.

What you can't even tell us is whether the thing you claim isn't Bush exists or not - Because you don't even know what it is. You don't even know if it actually is Bush. You don't know of the "Supernatural" as you call it is some unknown Material process. This is how little you know about it.

It's just a word to you. "Supernatural" So easy to say, and add a lot of words to it to make you sound like you're saying something about it, but you aren't. Anymore than a person going into great detail about the mating habits of Unicorns. Or the magical properties of pixies.

You're done.

No, I’m saying that the “it” we’ve defined into two categories is “reality”. You can do that with positively and negatively defined words. GWBJrs and non-GWBJrs is one categorization that makes perfect sense. Then we give arguments as to whether each category has actually existing things in it. Theoretically, it’s possible that the non-GWBJrs category has no actually existing members, say, if we are all a figment of George W Bush Jr.’s imagination. But we have philosophical arguments using scientific and historical data against that.

Another categorization that makes perfect sense in exactly the same way is dividing reality into natural and non-natural (i.e., supernatural). These are perfectly understandable categories. Then we give arguments as to whether there are any actual things in the each category.

(a) The definition of something and (b) whether that something (or something in that category) exists are two different questions. Your critique was that we can’t know (b) if the supernatural exists because (a) we don’t even have a definition of supernatural. But we do have a definition of it. Your critique is that a negative definition isn’t an actual definition, but it is. If it isn’t then you couldn’t understand what it means to be a non-George W. Bush Jr., but you know you understand what that means. Therefore, your critique about how negatively defining ‘supernatural’ makes me done is obviously flawed. Since the definitions work, we can then set about to see if any arguments show the existence of something within the supernatural category. If you want to argue for unicorns or pixies being in that category, go ahead, I’ll argue for what I think there is reason to argue for. The cases for each will depend on their own merits and demerits.

So, either you have a rational response to how negative definitions still don't count, taking into account what I've just shared or drop the critique. If you simply restate that negative definitions don't count, then you are showing that you are done with a rational discussion on this. If you will finally admit your critique here holds no weight, then we can return to the two other critiques you made but haven't returned to since you thought there was something behind the “negative definitions aren’t definitions” critique:

(1) [This is the “means of proof” I was talking about you limiting.] Why should someone believe that science is a necessary element of any knowledge of reality? There isn’t science to back that knowledge claim up.

(2) Why is it logically impossible for a non-natural thing to impact the natural world to where its natural effects could be detected by natural means, but that the cause itself couldn’t be detected by natural means?

This is pure sophistry. It's horrible.

You are making a glaring and simple error in thinking that by making a set of two things: GWB and Non-GWB that you have defined things. You haven't. You say you have - and so confidently too! You seem to actually believe you have defined something - even GWB!

Let's test your theory of definition:

I have a liquid I'd like you to drink - it's not GWB - will it kill you?

You will hem and haw about more detail (no duh!) - but after all my "it's not Trump, It's not a ball, it's not a dog, it's not arsenic....." You still wouldn't know if it was going to kill you or not.

A definition DEFINES the thing. It creates the limits of that thing.

You're done.

But prove me wrong. Find a scholarly, philosophical article on Definitions that includes the idea you are proposing. I'll read it.
Here is a starting point:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/

And this might be more appropriate: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/none ... giNoneObje

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #763]

Definitions are short statements; they don’t tell us everything we need to know about something. The articles you linked to don’t say any different. You are obviously stuck here (which you think is fine and I’ve shared why I think it’s not) and so there is no going forward. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and listening to mine.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #763]

A definition DEFINES the thing. It creates the limits of that thing.

True. One could say of such, that these are "Full Disclosure Definitions" (FDD) about things - "things" either as real objects or as philosophical concepts.

Definitions are short statements; they don’t tell us everything we need to know about something.

If we NEED to know "everything about something" then such type definitions (non-FDD) have no logical, practical, or rational value re fulfilling said NEED and are thus easily critiqued as "non-essential" philosophy, and can be categorized as "inferior philosophy", which it has been shown, Supernaturalist Philosophy is.

For example.
IF:
We NEED to know everything about an invisible creator of a visible created thing and this creator just happens to reside in an existence which cannot be examine that our NEED is taken care of...
THEN:
There is no meaningful point in going down that path or even arguing for the existence of such a supernatural being, because the philosophy itself is inferior as something which can answer said NEED.

So - best option is to look elsewhere.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #763]

Definitions are short statements; they don’t tell us everything we need to know about something. The articles you linked to don’t say any different. You are obviously stuck here (which you think is fine and I’ve shared why I think it’s not) and so there is no going forward. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and listening to mine.

Sorry to thoroughly trounce you on this. Your position really isn't tenable, and I was half expecting you to either disappear or concede. You seem to have done neither, and are acting as if this is some mild disagreement where we both can be right. It's not. It's a fundamental issue that ungirds your entire worldview: you can't define the single most important aspect of your worldview (the Supernatural). You seem to think that because definitions aren't all-encompassing, that means a negative definition meets the challenge.

Let's be clear, you can't give us ONE positive description of the Supernatural. Let's be more clear: the Supernatural doesn't exist.

I've demonstrably shown why a negative definition isn't useful, and I've provided philosophical papers to back it up. I've ask for a philosophical paper in favor of your view and you have not provided it. Worse, religion and metaphysics is fundamentally based on negative definitions - which should immediately tell us all we need to know about religion and metaphysics.

After all, it's exactly what we'd expect from people who want to convince you of something that doesn't exist: negative definitions.

The best you can say, and this is generous, is that Metaphysicians find Negative Definitions useful. I'd even argue that "useful" isn't true, as there is nothing Metaphysicians produce that can be used. Mulling over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin has never solved anything - especially when you can't even define an angel.

[boatsnguitars]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense. For instance, if you like pistachio flavored ice cream, it isn't helpful to call your tastes "wrong". Morality would be the same. Even trying to judge the action by the harm/help it creates won't work because there are so many different ideas of what is harmful and helpful, again putting harm/help on the level of ice cream flavor you like.

If Otseng and Tanager are right about Theism, and OMVs, let's look at what would be moral under Theism the same way Otseng tried to convince me that OMVs exist by giving me a list of things that tried to prove we all agree on moral values. Things like "torturing babies is wrong, murder is wrong, etc." (Which I suggested circumcision seems to fly counter to this claim that it's always wrong to torture a baby, according to Theists)

Here, I provide a list that were considered moral under theism - that if a person like Otseng would have said, "You don't believe there are Objective Moral Value!?!?! What about these!:

Slavery:
Slavery was widely accepted in many ancient societies, and individuals were often regarded as property.

Human Sacrifice:
Certain ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice as part of religious rituals, considering it morally acceptable to appease deities.

Gladiator Games:
Ancient Romans found entertainment in gladiator games, where individuals fought to the death for public amusement.

Infanticide:
In some ancient cultures, the practice of killing infants, especially if they were deemed undesirable, was considered acceptable.

Discrimination Against Women:
Many ancient societies upheld patriarchal structures that marginalized and restricted the rights of women.

Blood Sports:
Beyond gladiator games, various societies engaged in blood sports involving animals or humans for public entertainment.

Class Inequality:
Hierarchical class systems were often entrenched in ancient societies, with significant disparities in wealth and privilege.

Animal Sacrifice:
Ritualistic sacrifice of animals was prevalent in several ancient religions as a means of appeasing deities or seeking divine favor.

Duels and Trial by Combat:
In certain cultures, duels and trial by combat were accepted methods of resolving disputes, even to the death.

Ethnic and Cultural Discrimination:
Ancient civilizations often exhibited discrimination based on ethnicity, culture, or tribal affiliations.

Concubinage:
Having concubines or secondary wives was socially acceptable in various ancient cultures, even if not considered moral by today's standards.

Indentured Servitude:
Systems of indentured servitude or bonded labor were common in ancient societies.

Inhumane Punishments:
Cruel and unusual punishments, such as public executions and torture, were often accepted methods of justice.

Child Labor:
Children were frequently engaged in labor from a young age in various ancient societies.

Blood Feuds:
Retaliatory violence or blood feuds were sometimes seen as a just means of settling disputes in ancient societies.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #767]

Being accepted by individuals or whole societies, including Christian individuals and societies, does not mean that is the actual objective morality God has instilled. Acceptance as true isn't a good standard for truth.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #767]

Being accepted by individuals or whole societies, including Christian individuals and societies, does not mean that is the actual objective morality God has instilled. Acceptance as true isn't a good standard for truth.

I completely agree. Then why is otseng asking me if I agree on certain moral values as if he's suggesting we can decide if there are objective moral values?

One has to wonder what the standard of truth is, then, if we can only experience the material world? You aren't going to propose that God is the standard are you? Because no one knows what God considers the standard - nor can Theists even demonstrate he exists in order for us to ask him.

[The Tanager]

I completely agree. Then why is otseng asking me if I agree on certain moral values as if he's suggesting we can decide if there are objective moral values?

One has to wonder what the standard of truth is, then, if we can only experience the material world? You aren't going to propose that God is the standard are you? Because no one knows what God considers the standard - nor can Theists even demonstrate he exists in order for us to ask him.

I haven't been following that conversation, so I can't answer your question about otseng. But I disagree with you that we only experience the material world. I think we experience the wills of others, which I don't think are material, for instance. And I would propose God is the standard of objective human moral values. That is a different question than exactly what those values are. The truth of the former doesn't require knowledge of the latter.