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?

[Masterblaster]

Hello 1213

You say - "But, maybe it is possible that the gut feeling comes from something that exists independently and therefore can be in a way objective."

-----
That makes sense to me in this way

Accept
(a)there is naturally a human bias involved
(b) this bias needs to be calibrated against
(c) objectivity must almost be counter-intuitive
(d) to roll with the bias, creates fantasy
(e) I think that this is TRANSPONDER's point.

When you see the weird extractions that many theists reach within their doctrines, not only are they counter- intuitive but they are ridiculous as well. They compound their ridicule by asserting to have found the true path to Divine wisdom and that it is a specific path that God clearly and obviously made for mankind?

Now you have to admit that that is a long way from having 'a gut feeling'

What do you think, 1213?

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello 1213

You say - "But, maybe it is possible that the gut feeling comes from something that exists independently and therefore can be in a way objective."

-----
That makes sense to me in this way

Accept
(a)there is naturally a human bias involved
(b) this bias needs to be calibrated against
(c) objectivity must almost be counter-intuitive
(d) to roll with the bias, creates fantasy
(e) I think that this is TRANSPONDER's point.

When you see the weird extractions that many theists reach within their doctrines, not only are they counter- intuitive but they are ridiculous as well. They compound their ridicule by asserting to have found the true path to Divine wisdom and that it is a specific path that God clearly and obviously made for mankind?

Now you have to admit that that is a long way from having 'a gut feeling'

What do you think, 1213?

Thanks

I totally agree. But I don't get, when you almost see that human mental perceptions are the answer, you are still batting for the Bible? Why? I already said (which you apparently called a 'bluff') that appeal to wonder at nature is not only not evidence but not even a case. It is not a bluff, but an error - science (or secularism) does not delete a sense of beauty or wonder.

So I don't see where you get a case for theism or religion from.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

It would be possible to make the case that balance is an objective morality within nature.
The elimination of weakness and carelessness is another obvious objective morality.
Reciprocity is there...or is it?
Programming appears to be there.
Diversity of strategies appears to be there.
A cohesion of parts is an obvious?
What objectivity these observations contain is a matter for debate.
All these observations of our existence can provide usefull insights to us. This thing works!

If we look at mammalian love, fear,guilt etc we become subjective.
We need to contextualize our morals with those of creatures like wolves, horses elephants, apes etc to have any level of objectivity in that discussion
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

It would be possible to make the case that balance is an objective morality within nature.
The elimination of weakness and carelessness is another obvious objective morality.
Reciprocity is there...or is it?
Programming appears to be there.
Diversity of strategies appears to be there.
A cohesion of parts is an obvious?
What objectivity these observations contain is a matter for debate.
All these observations of our existence can provide usefull insights to us. This thing works!

If we look at mammalian love, fear,guilt etc we become subjective.
We need to contextualize our morals with those of creatures like wolves, horses elephants, apes etc to have any level of objectivity in that discussion
Thanks

No. You concealed the pill in the bacon. Even though the pill (case for a god) is not religion specific so it could be Allah or Shiva as much as Biblegod.

The attempt to force ID (cohesion of parts) is a apologetics swindle. Evolution accounts for such cohesion. Animal co -operation as a survival trait is known in animals. Why not in humans?survival (evolution) accounts better than a god -morality.

Diversity of strategies is very vague, but implies nature finding different solutions, not a god imposing a moral code. Looking at animal'morals' becomes objective (evolved survival traits) not subjective.That was an apologetics fiddle.

I'll leave it there.I think your case failed enough. If your case for for a god, never mind whichever god.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

My last post hopped across yours in cyber-space, and was not designed to respond to a post of yours directly. Let us get back on track... I will respond to this question of yours as soon as life allows. It is a good question, imho

TRANSPONDER - " But I don't get, when you almost see that human mental perceptions are the answer, you are still batting for the Bible"

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

My last post hopped across yours in cyber-space, and was not designed to respond to a post of yours directly. Let us get back on track... I will respond to this question of yours as soon as life allows. It is a good question, imho

TRANSPONDER - " But I don't get, when you almost see that human mental perceptions are the answer, you are still batting for the Bible"

Thanks

Take your time. It is a specific and general question, point or argument. Specifically appeal to ID, and it's waffly spin -off'look at the trees'.

Goddless argue that evolutionary processes account for enough that a god (name your own) is not necessary. The efforts to argue this on a scientific basis failed.Their best shot - I/C was deflated at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial which effectively said that ID is not only invalid science but isn't science at all. It is religion -driven creationism.

So the spin off is to drop an attempt to argue for a god (name your own...this is a point that is always overlooked) scientifically having failed, arguing for a god though emotion is the ticket.

But that fails, too. A mountain, waterfall or ...let's say a glacier...is impressive, and big, beautiful sorta and awresome. That in no way means it is evidence for a god.

So science and emotion - evidence and reason - fails to make a case for a god, never mind a particular one.

There is no case other that faithbased denialism and hoo boy have we not seen scads of that around in recent weeks?

So the question is, why are you advocating for a god, if indeed you are?

[POI]

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.

Please provide an example of a gut feeling we all instinctually agree upon, but just don't want to hear it?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Look at this conversation, Please!

1213- "But, maybe it is possible that the gut feeling comes from something that exists independently and therefore can be in a way objective."

-----
Masterblaster Reply
That makes sense to me in this way
Accept
(a)there is naturally a human bias involved
(b) this bias needs to be calibrated against
(c) objectivity must almost be counter-intuitive
(d) to roll with the bias, creates fantasy
(e) I think that this is TRANSPONDER's point.

When you see the weird extractions that many theists reach within their doctrines, not only are they counter- intuitive but they are ridiculous as well. They compound their ridicule by asserting to have found the true path to Divine wisdom and that it is a specific path that God clearly and obviously made for mankind?
------
TRANSPONDER -"I totally agree. But I don't get, when you almost see that human mental perceptions are the answer, you are still batting for the Bible? Why? "

Why!!

To observe and attempt to assimilate objective morality we need to battle against natural human bias. TRANSPONDER, would appear to be in agreement with this( I hope). Our look must include as much of the whole picture as we are humanly capable of receiving. Polarized references are necessary to even get a semblance of objectivity. The arbitary aspects of the forest fire are too many for a human to evaluate. Just watch it burn.

I am trying to get to TRANSPONDER's 'Why?' I mentioned the word cohesion and he nearly lost it.I know why. He predicted a line of argument that I might use. I will not,talk about cohesion except to say that T, needs to examine his aversion to the concept. I was thinking about cohesion, there is cohesion within the parts of a person, there is cohesion within the inanimate parts of a galaxy. (I think?). Discuss this yourselves, if you so wish.

Why am I a theist. Why do I promote the Bible as a source of insight.Why do I see God?

The bias that I spoke of earlier has many forms. It is like a protective shield that will make objective truth palatable for your subconscious. Bias can make life better than it is. It can create hope where there is none. It is delusional.

Bias can display itself in the following manner.
Try blocking bias that tells you that the whole thing is not really as it appears...ignore that there are approx 2 trillion galaxies in the visible Universe if you want to comfort yourself...but if you really want to stare into the Abyss with eyes wide open, it will stare back at you.
If I look at my earth space objectively while resisting bias, ....I am suddenly frozen. If I maintain my objective glare , I am spellbound. Then I am frightened, and then I witness my minuscule irrelevance.

If I stay in the objective moment , and realize my realization,....I turn to whatever is out there and I try to feel part of all that. I am looking for my space in that thing that I call God.

Psalm 19
" The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard....."

That is why!

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Our Galaxy: The Milky Way...wiki

"The Milky Way contains between 100 and 400 billion stars and at least that many planets. An exact figure would depend on counting the number of very-low-mass stars, which are difficult to detect, especially at distances of more than 300 ly (90 pc) from the Sun. As a comparison, the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy contains an estimated one trillion stars"

What would trillions of these galaxy things be like?

Can you imagine it?

Do you believe it?

What would the ostrich do?

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello
Apparently, there are more Stars than grains of sand on the Earth, but....
" If you took 10 drops of water (not extra-big drops, just regular drops, I'm presuming) and counted the number of H2O molecules in those drops, you'd get a number equal to all the stars in the universe."

Thank You ,for that,....that helps me sleep !