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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "One false one (it is not new) is the 'let us hope for future evidence that will overturn everything' argument with the impudent supposition that it is so sure to pop up that we should believe it now."

----
Isn't that Science in a nutshell, T???
Isn't that why we are landing trash cans on the moon? One small step and all that..

I have nothing against space travel except the horrific overspend and waste of intellectual energy ,that it entails. (Add corruption,war-mongering and deception).I am not a Trekkie, by any means but I can recognize escapist illusion when confronted with it. I watched Maverick, Top Gun 2, last Saturday,...how long have you got!
Thanks

It is science in a nutshell, but where Theists do it wrong is assuming both positions are equal. They are not.

I have already said why But I'll make it plain; materialist science has validated materialism because it has explained so much without the need for a god, and even closing some gaps for God that were existing. DNA answered a lot a questions about the mechanism of evolution and indeed is the clue to instinct, which is the clue to morals, faith and the various kinds of love.

All that Theism can do is point to the dwindling gaps for a god and claim it's there.

No, materialism has earned the right to be the default expectation for whatever answers we don't have, and Theism has lost that claim, if ever it merited it. But don't feel bad; Theists and indeed theist thinking, consistently makes this error of thinking.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Thank You ,TRANSPONDER, for your input.


Job is not passive in his theism. He provides an ultimatum to us. If you are intrusive or naively careless with God ,you will get burned.

This is not the first time that the Bible predicts something that Science(as we call it), subsequently, goes on to confirm. Consider human curiosity! Call it what you like, eulogize about a hunger for knowledge, talk raptourously about the Final Frontier, use a dead-pan reference to the primate brain making Evolution happen. ...call it whatever way you see it.

Then objectively look at the path that our curiosity has ordained for us. The Genesis tree of Good and Evil states clearly that our curiosity brings about treachery on ourselves. It is unequivocal in this .

Now, back to 2024 and explain this to me. Why, is there a fly-over, of fighter-jets, across the Superbowl Stadium, directly after the singing of 'The Star Spangled Banner'....why such pride in war technology. Is it just show business? The plane is hardly as dangerous as the flag that it flies for. Are we better, safer, and happier because we devoted our efforts into making these things?

Curiosity killed the cat
Information made him fat.

The Biblical theists should logically be opposed to much of our future momentum and trajectory, as a species with reference to God. I know that TRANSPONDER, vehemently disagrees with me and I am moving off stage to allow the discussion to broaden.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

Thank You ,TRANSPONDER, for your input.


Job is not passive in his theism. He provides an ultimatum to us. If you are intrusive or naively careless with God ,you will get burned.

This is not the first time that the Bible predicts something that Science(as we call it), subsequently, goes on to confirm. Consider human curiosity! Call it what you like, eulogize about a hunger for knowledge, talk raptourously about the Final Frontier, use a dead-pan reference to the primate brain making Evolution happen. ...call it whatever way you see it.

Then objectively look at the path that our curiosity has ordained for us. The Genesis tree of Good and Evil states clearly that our curiosity brings about treachery on ourselves. It is unequivocal in this .

Now, back to 2024 and explain this to me. Why, is there a fly-over, of fighter-jets, across the Superbowl Stadium, directly after the singing of 'The Star Spangled Banner'....why such pride in war technology. Is it just show business? The plane is hardly as dangerous as the flag that it flies for. Are we better, safer, and happier because we devoted our efforts into making these things?

Curiosity killed the cat
Information made him fat.

The Biblical theists should logically be opposed to much of our future momentum and trajectory, as a species with reference to God. I know that TRANSPONDER, vehemently disagrees with me and I am moving off stage to allow the discussion to broaden.
Thanks

The latter partof thispost is irrelevant.It is about national pride, whether in world sports, wars won in history, being first on the moon or Mars, or the biggest and best military. This is all comprehensible in terms of evolved tribalism. And the modern idea of co -operation, trade and doing better by the planet hat the continual wars of the past, with religion urging us on with banners and Biblequotes.

And maybe that answers the first part. Evolved instincts of co -operation and reciprocity, common to all hum,ans, no matter the religion, explains morality as well as the problems with having one that works reliably, better than ascribing it to a god let alone a god of one religion, who apparently gave that same ethics to all people, not just those that beleived in him.

So how do you explain that, unless you concede that no one religion or its' god can be the 'true one', and at best only Deism really fits the evidence, personal religions being man -made.

[otseng]

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?

No, I'm not stating that and it's just more twisting of my words. I have never stated if one has strong intuitions about things that it makes it objectively moral. To see what I have stated about ethics, can start here:
viewtopic.php?p=1136039#p1136039

[William]

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?

No, I'm not stating that and it's just more twisting of my words. I have never stated if one has strong intuitions about things that it makes it objectively moral. To see what I have stated about ethics, can start here:
viewtopic.php?p=1136039#p1136039

Can you link to where you address the idea that morality is objective/exists objectively?

[otseng]

Can you link to where you address the idea that morality is objective/exists objectively?

I do not claim all morality is objective. What I do claim is morality consists of both subjective morality and objective morality.

I think we all agree subjective morality exists. So, the issue is if objective morality exists. And I believe it is primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists. For instance, we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair.

[William]

Can you link to where you address the idea that morality is objective/exists objectively?

I do not claim all morality is objective. What I do claim is morality consists of both subjective morality and objective morality.

I think we all agree subjective morality exists. So, the issue is if objective morality exists. And I believe it is primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists. For instance, we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair.

Your for instance appears to be sourced within rather than externally. Why do you understand such as being 'objective' (which usually means an external thing)?

[Masterblaster]

Hello otseng

You say - "And I believe it is primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists. For instance, we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair"

Isn't that the same as this?

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

Then , why this?



Otseng -"No, I'm not stating that and it's just more twisting of my words. I have never stated if one has strong intuitions about things that it makes it objectively moral"

------
It is good to see you down from the mountain, otseng,...you should get out more. You are walking a razor thin edge on all this.You are a millimetre away from saying ..."that you are not saying what you say"

Let me have a go at deciphering what you are saying. Most people expect fairness so that is objective morality???If enough of us think it should be then it is???? If it needs to be , then it should be????

The world is not 'fair' ,otseng,...neither is God..

I think I see where you are coming from...you think that God has laid out a row of crumbs that are strategically placed to lead us somewhere. It is your perception of how God works that is leading this convoluted 'reasoning'...I told you as much, 2 days ago.
Was I even close????
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

I am still in a tail-spin from otseng's turbulence. That is the last time I am watching Top Gun films, before bed.

I was thinking about the two words 'fair' and 'just'. The internet can split hairs on these two for as long as you desire. Neither are fit for purpose ,in my view, as they both scream out subjectiveness.

Imagine a game of cards with no cheating! You loose your shirt....that is fair, that is just!

Imagine the game of life!


There are basic fundamentals to it that are non-negotiable. You need to tune onto these as best you can, and even then, you appear to loose. That cannot be described as fair or just unless you have the loving Father knows best mindset.

I do not have that attitude. I am going where this thing takes me, same as everyone else. I pray it's a good one. We are contemplating a knife edge in all this, and from all sides. We are very small.

If you emphasize the personal notion of God (as Christian Doctrine notoriously, does), you project subjectivity on to God's every action. You make a story about God that is based on your deepest desires.
Thanks

[otseng]

I do not claim all morality is objective. What I do claim is morality consists of both subjective morality and objective morality.

I think we all agree subjective morality exists. So, the issue is if objective morality exists. And I believe it is primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists. For instance, we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair.

Your for instance appears to be sourced within rather than externally. Why do you understand such as being 'objective' (which usually means an external thing)?

We need to go back and hash out some things. What is objective morality and does it exist?

Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?

I believe objective morality exists, do you?