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 - "What your post is, is a familiar self delusion similar to Anselm's Ontological argument - we can imagine a higher ideal; that ideal must be true and that must be God. Sorry, humans see how things do not reach the ideals we hope for, but proposing a god with some kind of perfection (which doesn't exist except in our own imaginations) is just the lazy thinking of the primitives."

------
You are gone off on a tangent again. I purposely stated that objective morality was arbitary and often harsh., no kind of Utopian Idealism here. It is actually an attempt at realism. I am not eulogizing about a world morality, I am stating that it is in motion in front of our eyes and that we are still essentially captive to it.

Add that one of yours to POI's list ie perfection...you are good at this theology stuff.
Thanks

Thank you, captain obvious. I have noted that you seem to recognise the failure of world and society to be morally perfect, but you also appear to claim that some gut feeling or voice in the head represents a divine reality. Yet you see to be unable to fit the disparate and discrepant elements together and accuse me of going off tangent (by which you mean a logic course you don't care to follow but want to stick to some kind of Belief and expect everyone else to stick to it too..again, you do not get to control the narrative). But as usual the denial of the Theist apologist (if that is where you are - it appears so) is not the point, it is those looking in can see who is making the best case and which are refusing to follow it and berating those who do as not sticking to the faithclaim they wanted to insistently push.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Thank you, captain obvious. I have noted that you seem to recognise the failure of world and society to be morally perfect, but you also appear to claim that some gut feeling or voice in the head represents a divine reality"
-----
I have been asking myself ,T, is this true?
I believe in this ' reality' before us.
(The scale is incomprehensible!)
I assume you do too.
What do you extract from that? I extract God!
I am mesmerized by the whole life experience.
I cannot call it nothing. It does not feel like that.

Do you have any sense of anything amazing, T?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Thank you, captain obvious. I have noted that you seem to recognise the failure of world and society to be morally perfect, but you also appear to claim that some gut feeling or voice in the head represents a divine reality"
-----
I have been asking myself ,T, is this true?
I believe in this ' reality' before us.
(The scale is incomprehensible!)
I assume you do too.
What do you extract from that? I extract God!
I am mesmerized by the whole life experience.
I cannot call it nothing. It does not feel like that.

Do you have any sense of anything amazing, T?
Thanks

You are putting me on. Or maybe not. Sometimes I might expect too much from religious apologists.

I also believe in the reality before us (1) and it is amazing and wonderful and has many unknowns. That in no way validates a god of any kind, let alone Biblegod. You may get 'god' out of it if you want to, but there is a deeper and truer (I reckon) answer to be had by those who prefer the better explanation than cuddling up to their mental preferences and dismissing (not to say abusing) anyone who suggests something a bit more sophisticated.

(1) and forget (really) about the solipsist nonsense. I did a mind experiment in my teens called the choose sandwich experiment (when I was doing a construction Job with a lunch break before getting to London (for the concerts) and getting behind a desk with clean fingernails for once) and...yes, I'm getting there. I found the sandwich was peanut butter, not the cheese I'd been expecting. This was evidence (if not proof) that reality exists apart from what we think. Reality is not imagined.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say '"You may get 'god' out of it if you want to, but there is a deeper and truer (I reckon) answer to be had by those who prefer the better explanation than cuddling up to their mental preferences and dismissing (not to say abusing) anyone who suggests something a bit more sophisticated"

What is it,T?
I reckon this all points to a bluff.

Thanks

[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?

Objective meanings:
1) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
2) Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
3) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

If more than one has the same gut feeling, is it objective?

Can gut feeling be observed?

Is gut feeling always influenced by prejudices?

I'll tell you what I already told Otseng.

If your gut intuition tells you something which agrees with God, it's right. If it does not, you are being derailed by "sin" or "evil". Is this the gist of it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say '"You may get 'god' out of it if you want to, but there is a deeper and truer (I reckon) answer to be had by those who prefer the better explanation than cuddling up to their mental preferences and dismissing (not to say abusing) anyone who suggests something a bit more sophisticated"

What is it,T?
I reckon this all points to a bluff.

Thanks

Doesn't matter if you call it a bluff or even think it is. I have set out my argument and others must judge. If they conclude that my explanation (remember I know the god in my head is me) and credit that awe at bigness and beauty does not = "God", then your post will be considered a bluff.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say '"You may get 'god' out of it if you want to, but there is a deeper and truer (I reckon) answer to be had by those who prefer the better explanation than cuddling up to their mental preferences and dismissing (not to say abusing) anyone who suggests something a bit more sophisticated"

What is it,T?
I reckon this all points to a bluff.

Thanks

Doesn't matter if you call it a bluff or even think it is. I have set out my argument and others must judge. If they conclude that my explanation (remember I know the god in my head is me) and credit that awe at bigness and beauty does not = "God", then your post will be considered a bluff.

So its deeper
And its truer
And it's better
And a bit more sophisticated...so
What is it?

(Is it a bluff?)

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say '"You may get 'god' out of it if you want to, but there is a deeper and truer (I reckon) answer to be had by those who prefer the better explanation than cuddling up to their mental preferences and dismissing (not to say abusing) anyone who suggests something a bit more sophisticated"

What is it,T?
I reckon this all points to a bluff.

Thanks

Doesn't matter if you call it a bluff or even think it is. I have set out my argument and others must judge. If they conclude that my explanation (remember I know the god in my head is me) and credit that awe at bigness and beauty does not = "God", then your post will be considered a bluff.

What is it?

A pretence at a refutation, when it isn't.

cue: 'Why isn't it?'
Because it makes no case, presents no evidence and carries no weight.

[1213]

If your gut intuition tells you something which agrees with God, it's right. If it does not, you are being derailed by "sin" or "evil". Is this the gist of it?

I think it is an interesting question, can a gut feeling really tell something that is not true. And could it be something else than a gut feeling, if you are derailed. Difficult to know surely. I believe everyone knows the truth deep inside of them, but some just don't want to hear it.

[1213]

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?

Objective meanings:
1) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
2) Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
3) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

If more than one has the same gut feeling, is it objective?

Can gut feeling be observed?

Is gut feeling always influenced by prejudices?

Hello 1213

This is a tricky one for me.
1) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.

There is that old logic that it is all in the mind and that nothing is not mind and that our mind cannot penetrate that which is not our mind. It is a Rubik Cube with beige squares.
I settle for this. We have faculties that allow us to observe natural patterns with as much dispassionate objectivity as is required to retain it's original truth. When we start to consider this revelation it becomes subjective.

A natural forest fire is an awesome show but if I attach the concept of destruction to it then the moment becomes subjective. I can't even do Cubes with 6 colours.
Thanks

Thanks! I think you have a good point. All that we experience depends on our minds. Without mind, we would not know anything. That means we can't know is there anything independently of our minds. But, maybe it is possible that the gut feeling comes from something that exists independently and therefore can be in a way objective.