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?

[William]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #168]

Without an external, transcendent standard/guide...there is no knowing what is objectively right/wrong.. precisely because there is no objective right or wrong.

There doesn't appear to be any which anyone has identified.

Maybe not to you. But to me, it has.

God has been identified through Jesus Christ (John 1:18).

Let's have a look...

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

As one should know, such declarations are not as clear-cut as to positively say that this "God" exists as an external object one can "see" and many think biblical Jesus was referring to the inner goings on of the mind/mindfulness.
We can at least be fairly certain that none of the stories about Jesus have him pointing to any particular object (form) and declaring said object was the God he was "seeing".

But go ahead, show us the external, transcendent standard/guide that you see as identified. Unless of course, you are really meaning it all takes place within the individual and are simply confusing external processes with internal processes.

This means that the transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience eg "the search for a transcendent level of knowledge") standard/guide must be an internal one. This is usually thought of as the subconscious aspect (of the individual human psyche) which said psyche is unconscious of (referred to as "the unconscious".

?

Usually words go before the "?" in order to inform the reader as to what question one is asking...

Such concept is not outside of/contrary to the realm of Jesus-speak (what biblical Jesus is attributed to have spoken about) so can remain on the table of discussion for that - at least - I think so.

?

Do you have questions? Please feel free to ask.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #170]

Looks like this was covered in my last response.

Asking the same questions in different ways does not negate my answer.

Perhaps more time should be spent addressing what I said, instead of rephrasing the question.

[SiNcE_1985]

As one should know, such declarations are not as clear-cut as to positively say that this "God" exists as an external object one can "see" and many think biblical Jesus was referring to the inner goings on of the mind/mindfulness.
We can at least be fairly certain that none of the stories about Jesus have him pointing to any particular object (form) and declaring said object was the God he was "seeing".

The "?" means that I have no idea what the referenced quote means, in its totality.

Such as the case here.

But go ahead, show us the external, transcendent standard/guide that you see as identified. Unless of course, you are really meaning it all takes place within the individual and are simply confusing external processes with internal processes.

We are talking about objective standards.

"Internal processes" are individualistic and thus subjective.

If you feel as if X is objectively wrong, then you must appeal to a higher binding standard that goes beyond natural processes.

Because after all, mother nature does not tell us what we ought to do, or ought not to do.

So, where would the sense/concept of ought come from?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #170]
Looks like this was covered in my last response.

At the bottom part of post 170, I've explained why your response does not address the question. If you opt not to answer the actual question, then so-be-it.

[William]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #173]

The "?" means that I have no idea what the referenced quote means, in its totality.

Let's unpack that then.
When I wrote;

This means that the transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience eg "the search for a transcendent level of knowledge")

I am referring to the act of transcendence as being an internal one.

For example, the human form (body) cannot see the full range of colors that the universe (external) has to offer any who might otherwise observe.

The "seeing" part is still subjective as seeing doesn't just involve what is able to be see in the objective (universe) but also in how one internally processes the information that is observed and in turn how one then reacts to said information after processing said information.

That is why I finished the sentence with;

the standard/guide must be an internal one.

Therein I was meaning that the guide is the mind and that the human mind is guided by said mind. Any act of transcendence has to do with the human personality finding sources of wisdom and inspiration within the depths of that human personalities mind.
The transcendence part has to do with becoming conscious of the subconscious realms of mindfulness. This means that human personalities reach inwards to access areas of mind they were previously unconscious of, and this is parabled in being able to "see colors one previously had no access to" that I have now mentioned.

That is why I continued with the sentence;

This is usually thought of as the subconscious aspect (of the individual human psyche) which said psyche is unconscious of (referred to as "the unconscious".

The subconscious aspect is an internal driver which the conscious aspect of the (growing/learning) human personality is generally unaware of and generally isn't even aware of how influential this subconscious aspect of mindfulness is in the now, and what that relationship can become for the human personality (as the connection is strengthened).

Becoming intimate with this aspect of one's mindfulness is an act of transcendence even that the transcendence is happening internally.

When I wrote;

But go ahead, show us the external, transcendent standard/guide that you see as identified.

This is an invitation for you to explain the external happenings of this supposed external moral influence. (As an example of the meaning of "explanation" you need to provide, it has to be done in a similar manner as I explained above.)

When I finished with;

Unless of course, you are really meaning it all takes place within the individual and are simply confusing external processes with internal processes.

I added that to say that you don't need to provide any explanation for a supposed external event, if indeed you are simply confusing the internal process as somehow being sourced/influenced from an external "somewhere/someone" outside of one's inner mindful processing.

[TRANSPONDER]

God, what a mess. Inasmuch as i could get what was being argued, it seems three points

imperfect human perceptions
the mechanism of human reaction
the moral instinct

We know that humans receive valid information about the outside world, through eyes and ears. It sometimes misinterprets them, for safety reasons, like a bush looks like a threat at night, or because of conditions and limited perception, like a heat effect can resemble water. That is why cosmology had to await science to see it wasn't how it looked.The mind is not always reliable, which is why it gets nothing from a god, even if there was one there.

Input is an illusion. Lightwaves are not blue or green, but that is how it is represented by the brain. But the information is true. Matter is not solid, but mostly nothing. Perhaps all nothing, and the only reality is physics which has (or so I would theorise) evolved as biological evolution has - what works, exists.

Finally, if morals really comes into it, this is instinctive, a survival mechanism (pack co - operation as we see in Mammals, too) but as human problem -sol
ving became pretty abstract and applied to human curiosity (questions), then it was applied to the laws and rules that were devised to regulate community.

There is no need to look for the mystical, the supernatural or the divine in any of this, and no more even if the smokescreenword 'transcendence' is thrown at it.

Transcendence - Sponderdef - taking the mundane and claiming there is a god behind it. It is a pretty fantasy but a fantasy, nonetheless.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to William in post #175]

I still don't get it, brethren.

You have a very abstract way of putting sentences together.

Very.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #170]
Looks like this was covered in my last response.

At the bottom part of post 170, I've explained why your response does not address the question. If you opt not to answer the actual question, then so-be-it.

How about this..

Read Acts 1:20-26.

That is how we should make decisions that the law doesn't cover either directly or indirectly.

1. Pray

2. Cast lots

3. Have faith that the end result was orchestrated by a divine hand (God).

4. Roll with the results.

Based on #3, that undermines anyone's opinion of what they think/believe the answer should be.

And it also undermines your attempted paradox.

Next.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #170]
Looks like this was covered in my last response.

At the bottom part of post 170, I've explained why your response does not address the question. If you opt not to answer the actual question, then so-be-it.

How about this..

Read Acts 1:20-26.

That is how we should make decisions that the law doesn't cover either directly or indirectly.

1. Pray

2. Cast lots

3. Have faith that the end result was orchestrated by a divine hand (God).

4. Roll with the results.

Based on #3, that undermines anyone's opinion of what they think/believe the answer should be.

And it also undermines your attempted paradox.

Next.

Hmm, so if you increase the sample size, will the result still be unanimous?

Your given application is way too small of a sample to verify anything at all. So of course, you could still rely upon 'faith', which verifies nothing. Many 'moral questions' are very situational. Which drives my point. Meaning, many are not as binary as (yes or no) or (him vs her) or (this vs that) answers. The point being, if you have 'faith' that there exists an actual 'giver' who gives 'moral intuitive senses' to all who ask, it then stands to reason that this "giver" will give the exact same answer to all the earnest folks who ask the same exact question. Your response does not, or would not, encapsulate a large enough sample size.

By applying your given Bible verse(s), we could try another test. Now have 100 people:

1. Pray
2. "Cast lots"
3. Have faith...etc..
4. Roll w/ the results

Will the results still be unanimous, being the same giver is answering the same question to all 100 folks? I guess it would depend, right? I mean, have 100 pray to 'the giver' about if raping a 3-year-old is ever good? Step one would not even be necessary. They all would say it's BAD before step one was ever needed. The answer would likely be a swift and unanimous NO.

But, now have the same 100 pray to "the giver" about if it is ever okay for a convicted pedophile, to ever get sodomized in prison? I bet you would not get the same immediate and consistent answers here. Why is this? Taken from post 170, Is it because:

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 above correctly, or
e) other?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #175]

I still don't get it, brethren.

You have a very abstract way of putting sentences together.

Very.

I would agree. I've also tried to ask him of his position, multiple times, but he chooses not to answer simply. (i.e.):

Hey William, what is your world view, exactly where on the spectrum are you? I mean, are you between (a) and (b), or are you maybe more of a (d)?:

a) an atheist
b) an agnostic
c) a deist
d) a pantheist
e) a theist
f) other

He instead wants me to sift through what he sends and apparently have me use my secret decoder pen sometimes. Oh well... Knowing the fundamental answer may save a lot of grief and headaches, and also unnecessary responses.

Take myself, for instance... I guess, if a gun were to my head, I would answer simply that I'm an atheist. But it is not this black and white in reality... I do still wrestle with the concept of if there is, or is not, some 'force' undiscovered. Being that this is really an unfalsifiable speculation, I guess it will never truly be resolved for me. But I can tell you that I HAVE ruled out, the claimed Bible-God, for logical reasons. Anywho... Just thought you would like to know...