Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #179]

Bro, you are asking the same questions when I already answered the question.

Let me break it down for you (respectfully).

1. The Bible is blatantly clear that rape/murder is wrong.

2. Based on #1, we do not have to pray about whether those things are right/wrong...thus, we unanimously agree that those things are wrong (to your point).

3. There are some circumstances/situations in life that aren't necessarily addressed in the Bible...such as euthanasia.

4.This is precisely what happened in Acts 1:20-26. There was nothing written in the holy scriptures that they could appeal to in their quest to find a replacement for Judas..so they went directly to God.

5. Based on #4, we should follow their example when it comes to things like...euthanasia.

6. If we have faith that #5 will garner results based on our faith in a holy, sovereign God of whom hears and answers prayers, then there should be no one left disagreeing with the decision being made, should there?

7. So, based on #5, you (we) just have to be prepared and ready to rock with whatever answer God gives us...because it may not be the answer we desire.

Now, are we clear?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #175]

I still don't get it, brethren.

I'm essentially discussing the concept of transcendence, highlighting that it's an internal process where individuals delve into their subconscious to gain insight and understanding. I use the analogy of perceiving colors beyond what the human eye can see to illustrate this. I emphasize that the guide for this internal journey is the mind itself, and that transcendence involves becoming aware of and accessing previously unconscious aspects of one's psyche. I challenge the notion of an external standard or guide, inviting those who claim such, to explain how such external influences operate. I suggest that these may simply be misconceptions of internal processes.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #179]

Bro, you are asking the same questions when I already answered the question.

Nope. See below.

1. The Bible is blatantly clear that rape/murder is wrong.

Irrelevant. We are speaking about our claimed given 'gut feelings' about any moral topic.

2. Based on #1.

False starting points often lead to false conclusions.

3. There are some circumstances/situations in life that aren't necessarily addressed in the Bible...such as euthanasia.

Okay.

4.This is precisely what happened in Acts 1:20-26. There was nothing written in the holy scriptures that they could appeal to in their quest to find a replacement for Judas..so they went directly to God.

Yes, and I addressed this...

5. Based on #4, we should follow their example when it comes to things like...euthanasia.

Yes, again, increase the sample size to 100. Will all receive the same 'gut feeling', like we do with the rape of a 3-year-old???? I doubt it. Why not, if the giver is giving us our gut feelings about both topics?

a) there is more than one giver, or
b) this giver changes his mind from person to person, or
c) 'evil forces' are blocking some of the requests, or
d) the ones who get a differing answer than you are not performing tasks (1-4 from Acts) correctly, or
e) other?

Stopping here, as the rest is also irrelevant.

[SiNcE_1985]

Irrelevant. We are speaking about our claimed given 'gut feelings' about any moral topic.

First off, you are the one who kept using the atrocities of rape/murder as examples of our intuitive gut feelings of being wrong..so used them as well.

Second, yeah, any moral topic that isn't laid out in the Bible was covered based on (for the third time), Acts 1:20-26.

That will remain my answer, so as long as you want to keep sweeping it under the rug in order to keep the paradox running strong.

Yes, again, increase the sample size to 100. Will all receive the same 'gut feeling', like we do with the rape of a 3-year-old???? I doubt it. Why not, if the giver is giving us our gut feelings about both topics?

Sample size is irrelevant.

As stated prior, if all participants have faith in the process, then anyone's particular gut feeling becomes irrelevant..since the results are based on God's will, not ours.

a) there is more than one giver, or
b) this giver changes his mind from person to person, or
c) 'evil forces' are blocking some of the requests, or
d) the ones who get a differing answer than you are not performing tasks (1-4 from Acts) correctly, or
e) other?

Stopping here, as the rest is also irrelevant.

Um, this all makes no sense..and I can tell your little paradox is losing its steam and you are desperately trying to keep it on track.

Tough decisions of which solutions are not either directly or indirectly laid out in the Bible..

1. Cast lots
2. Flip a coin
3. Whatever probabilistic measure you want to take.
4. Pray, asking God to reveal his will through whatever measure, in Jesus name.
5. Roll with the results.

This stripes away any gut feelings or preconceived notions that anyone has at that point.

So from now on, Acts 1:20-26.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #175]

I still don't get it, brethren.

I'm essentially discussing the concept of transcendence, highlighting that it's an internal process where individuals delve into their subconscious to gain insight and understanding. I use the analogy of perceiving colors beyond what the human eye can see to illustrate this. I emphasize that the guide for this internal journey is the mind itself, and that transcendence involves becoming aware of and accessing previously unconscious aspects of one's psyche. I challenge the notion of an external standard or guide, inviting those who claim such, to explain how such external influences operate. I suggest that these may simply be misconceptions of internal processes.

It just muddies the waters, treating the workings of the human brain as something spiritual, theistic or magical. Transcendence being a buzzword for a faithclaim that God hath dun everything and Faith is a hot line to God.

It seems to me futile as goddless unbelievers have no time for it and Beleivers won't like it because it doesn't point to the got of the true religion (whichever creed they were indoctrinated into).

And sortagoddists already believe it, so it just sounds like the epitome of echo chamber posting.

P.s forgive me if I already posted on this, but the claiming that the churnings of the human stodge are something Mysterious implying supernatural is the stuff of Philosophy in the form of the hard Question. I did a protracted discussion with someone who said he had a masters degree in philosophy, but was surprisingly illogical and unsound when one pared through the verbiage and got down to the actual flawed argument. The fallacy by analogy is one I think there ought to be (using something known as a way of proving an unknown by analogy). The idea was to argue that human perception in inexplicable and so requires dualism which in fact means either materialism or the supernatural. Fallacy right away which philosophies should know. The default is material and anything 'supernatural'is merely a claim to divine law, entity or being which has no evidential basis. Another was 'Chalmers zombies' Which failed because an exact replica zombie (or robot) and human would have all the perceptions and even the DNA - encoded instincts (1) and my opponent's attempts to remove stuff from both leaving 'something' were more like faithclaims the more he tried to do it. He also tried various 'analogy' arguments about perception which helped my case rather than hindered it. Like red radar. Effectively inside a room with radar would detect something outside but not as it was.

So what, I asked. Radar will detect an approaching aircraft as a blob not as what it is. But knowledge and experience will tell the operator what it actually nis. This is why we know solid is not and the sky is not a blue dome. Science, not perception is the more reliable, and how it mentally works is for biology to explain, not theism to misuse Philosophy to make a case for the 'supernatural'.

(1) invalidating the argument that a zombie would not react instinctively the way a human would - if it didn't, it would be because it hadn't evolved. If it had duplicated the instincts, it would react the same way. In short, the analogy was flawed to bias the argument.

[POI]

First off, you are the one who kept using the atrocities of rape/murder as examples of our intuitive gut feelings of being wrong..so used them as well.

Yes. All 100 people, if asked about of a 3-year-being raped as being wrong, all 100 would all state it's wrong. However, ask the same 100 folks about any particular act within the topic of euthanasia, and the 'gut feelings' will all of a sudden differ. Why? If the 'giver' gives, then the answers should be just as much unified for opinions about the 3-year-old, versus anything regarding the topic of euthanasia.

Second, yeah, any moral topic that isn't laid out in the Bible was covered based on (for the third time), Acts 1:20-26.

Yes, I already addressed this in detail, twice, and counting...

That will remain my answer, so as long as you want to keep sweeping it under the rug in order to keep the paradox running strong.

The only one here 'sweeping', is you.

Sample size is irrelevant.

Your expressed "Acts" test makes it relevant. Have 100 folks perform steps 1-4, as you suggested, if they should happen not to have any given 'gut feeling' about any particular moral topic. Will they all get the same answer, when performing the "Acts" test? If not, why not?

a) there is more than one giver, or
b) this giver changes his mind from person to person, or
c) 'evil forces' are blocking some of the requests, or
d) the ones who get a differing answer than you are not performing tasks (1-4 from Acts) correctly, or
e) other?

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes. All 100 people, if asked about of a 3-year-being raped as being wrong, all 100 would all state it's wrong.

For the sake of argument, I'll agree with that general statement.

However, ask the same 100 folks about any particular act within the topic of euthanasia, and the 'gut feelings' will all of a sudden differ. Why? If the 'giver' gives, then the answers should be just as much unified for opinions about the 3-year-old, versus anything regarding the topic of euthanasia.

Honestly, I do not understand your question...and I doubt its relevance, considering we have Biblical proof of faith-based people who casted lots to see God's will despite any gut feelings anyone may have had.

So, despite your question, we know that Biblically speaking, God has been known to accept this practice...again, making anything you insinuate with your question irrelevant.

Yes, I already addressed this in detail, twice, and counting...

Did you?

Your expressed "Acts" test makes it relevant. Have 100 folks perform steps 1-4, as you suggested, if they should happen not to have any given 'gut feeling' about any particular moral topic. Will they all get the same answer, when performing the "Acts" test? If not, why not?

a) there is more than one giver, or
b) this giver changes his mind from person to person, or
c) 'evil forces' are blocking some of the requests, or
d) the ones who get a differing answer than you are not performing tasks (1-4 from Acts) correctly, or
e) other?

Bro, you cannot get a different answer when performing this test.

The test will go like this..

1. 40 family members are assembled at the hospital. They are all, Bible-believing Christians.
2. Their grandmother, who is gravely ill, is on her deathbed..in a coma.
3. She has been suffering for years, in pain and agony.
4. 20 family members desire for her suffering to end. They'd like to pull the plug.
5. 20 family members don't want to pull the plug, believing that the Lord will heal her.
6. So, the family is divided on what course of action they should take.

7. I work in the hospital and overhear the family discussing this dilemma in the room.
8. I walk in the room and share with them Acts 1:20-26.
9. I suggest they follow the example of the disciples, and do what the disciples did.
10. The family agrees and will let the chips fall where they may.

11. I take a coin out of my pocket, and we all bow our heads in prayer.
12. I say whatever prayer I need to say, to let the Lord know that our decision will be made based on what we believe to be his divine, orchestrated hand...in Jesus' name.
13. The decision will be made at the flip of a coin.

14. If heads, we believe God is communicating with us that his will is for us to pull the plug.
15. If tails, we believe God is communicating with us that his will is for granny to live.
16. The coin is flipped, and it lands on tails.

So, based on #15, granny lives.

Since the Lord has spoken, it doesn't matter what the gut feelings were of those in #4.

So, there is no differing answer...because God has given us THE answer.

Granny lives.

End of discussion.

[POI]

For the sake of argument, I'll agree with that general statement.

Aces So the next logical question then becomes... If the giver gives, why do given "intuitive senses" differ on some "moral" topics, but not others? Any time you have an "intuitive sense", you are claiming this comes from elsewhere, other than the self. Why is this giver consistent about the wrongness for the rape of a 3-year-old, but not with other 'moral' topic(s)?

Honestly, I do not understand your question...

Allow me to try again. If 100 pray to God to receive the same answer, will they all get the same answer? For the rape of a 3-year-old, yes. For when to pull the plug on granny, (if at all), no.

13. The decision will be made at the flip of a coin.

Hmm? I guess that would also mean if you flipped the coin 20 times, it will always be tails? Otherwise, maybe there really is no invisible coin influencer?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #175]

I still don't get it, brethren.

I'm essentially discussing the concept of transcendence, highlighting that it's an internal process where individuals delve into their subconscious to gain insight and understanding. I use the analogy of perceiving colors beyond what the human eye can see to illustrate this. I emphasize that the guide for this internal journey is the mind itself, and that transcendence involves becoming aware of and accessing previously unconscious aspects of one's psyche. I challenge the notion of an external standard or guide, inviting those who claim such, to explain how such external influences operate. I suggest that these may simply be misconceptions of internal processes.

To further elaborate. Some Christians (perhaps many) do not give more than a fleeting glance (let alone nod of the head) to any branches of the Science of the Mind. This may have to do with why so many ex-Christians now calling themselves "atheists" are also lacking interest in the relevance of said Science.

My view is that, if we are "made in the image of God" then mind (no matter how mysterious/lacking in understanding mind is),it is still an aspect of the general package of the human experience and to ignore it, underestimate its importance or even demonize it rather than acknowledge said importance, may be detrimental (even very detrimental) to one's understanding ones self, by not have an as full and as complete a picture as is possible.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #175]

I still don't get it, brethren.

I'm essentially discussing the concept of transcendence, highlighting that it's an internal process where individuals delve into their subconscious to gain insight and understanding. I use the analogy of perceiving colors beyond what the human eye can see to illustrate this. I emphasize that the guide for this internal journey is the mind itself, and that transcendence involves becoming aware of and accessing previously unconscious aspects of one's psyche. I challenge the notion of an external standard or guide, inviting those who claim such, to explain how such external influences operate. I suggest that these may simply be misconceptions of internal processes.

To further elaborate. Some Christians (perhaps many) do not give more than a fleeting glance (let alone nod of the head) to any branches of the Science of the Mind. This may have to do with why so many ex-Christians now calling themselves "atheists" are also lacking interest in the relevance of said Science.

My view is that, if we are "made in the image of God" then mind (no matter how mysterious/lacking in understanding mind is),it is still an aspect of the general package of the human experience and to ignore it, underestimate its importance or even demonize it rather than acknowledge said importance, may be detrimental (even very detrimental) to one's understanding ones self, by not have an as full and as complete a picture as is possible.

I'm not sure I agree that deconverts (converts from) are lacking in interest in science. In my experience of those who communicate online they are avid to learn the explanations of science that were dismissed or rejected by the religion they once espoused.

As to mind, of course the workings of the human mind are of interest as are space,deep seaand sub atomic research, but they have little or nothing to do with the religion -debate and should not be dragged into it as some kind of excuse for a theism as you try to do with the human mind.

There is no good reason to see the human mind as anything but an evolved development of the brains of animals back through the two brains of dinosaurs (input processing in the head and locomotion in the hips down to the hear plantlike instinctive reaction of early animals to stimuli or threats.

Theists try to make everything from NDEs or morality a case for a god, as well as the instinct to worship,prayer, religion, and sacrifice (oh yes, I think this is an instinct that one has to bribe the gods for a favor) or, as I recall, your Jungian archetypes.

I think these rather belong on a forum for discussion about the workings of the brain, rather than religion or even Theism. So for me it's rather like someone logging on to make claims about Atlantis or the Mars face - what has that to do with religion?

I know, you consider this human mentality to be part of the cosmic mind. But that is a religious problem, namely 'why does the One God tell us all different things? It is clear on evidence that the human boko is a personal thing and differs from others. If we have similar archetypes it is because we evolved to have the same instincts, not because we are connected to some cosmic gas cloud with a liking for micromanagement.