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?

[POI]

This is my point... If 10 Christians pray to receive an answer, WHY is God always more successful with SOME 'moral' topics, vs others?

More successful? I'm not sure how you can even gauge such a thing.

Meaning, most/all will know 'murder' is 'wrong', with or without ever picking up a Bible. But the ones I mentioned, not-so-much.

See, that's where you are WRONG.

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

POI Many do not read the Bible, or have the Bible read to them. And yet, many still universally agree 'murder' is always wrong.

I do not believe the wrongness of murder would be universally felt in the absence of God.

The existence of God is probably the one reason more people aren't committing murder.

Are you then saying that the Bible God only gives intuitive senses to people who believe and ask him directly?

The Bible is clear that right/wrong is written on everyone's heart, whether we believe in him or not. (Rom 2:14-15)

POI I'll ask as much as I feel necessary, since your answers are not logically satisfactory.

No answer will ever be satisfactory to a religious skeptic.

That is the name of the game; "remain skeptical".

POI If you can demonstrate that an 'invisible moral giver' does indeed exist, I just may eventually be exactly on your side of the fence.

If you say so. I doubt it.

Hence, please start making sense here. Maybe ask God for more logical answers, and/or read what I wrote to William in post 151.

My answers are logical, to me.

Rather than do the typical here, in addressing the many head-scratchers, I instead ask that you respond to my last post to William. Even though you and his takes differ, it will still accomplish the same task. Post 160.

[William]

In case any theists are game, here is the easy test:

A) Exactly when is it good to engage in torture/murder? (Answer) Never
B) Exactly when is it good to engage in rape? (Answer) Never
C) Exactly when is it good to engage in euthanasia?

A) and B) are 'obvious' and universal. And they are apparently also the answers given to us by this deemed 'invisible intuition giver'. And yet, why is C) going to vary quite widely in it's answers? Isn't the act of euthanasia also a morally judgable action, which requires the objective assessment of a "moral law giver", which this 'giver' then passes down his "intuitive senses" to us?

Can you pinpoint where you got the answers to a) and b)? Was it through Christian influence, some other, or simply something you intuitively know as true?

Again, I'm pandering to the "theist" in this specific test, not you. Thus, I'm going to answer based upon what seems to be your current position.

Why do human 'intuitive senses' differ, if it is indeed a "giver" who is giving his intuitive senses to us? I mean, a) is there more than one giver, or b) does this giver change his mind, c) is 'evil forces' blocking some of the requests, d) other?

Each option can of course be integrated.

Before you answer, consider this... I reckon if 100 were asked if "raping" and "murdering" a 3-year-old was wrong, no one would first ask for what the actual definitions of "rape" and "murder" are, in this specific scenario.

Let's go with that reckoning and say that 100% would answer the same. Would the answer vary if it were a different age group being asked about?
Let's assume it would not. Now we can adjust the reckoning to read "if 100 were asked if "raping" and "murdering"

anyone

was wrong, no one would first ask for what the actual definitions of "rape" and "murder" are, in this specific scenario".

Then we can ask the 100 if they agree that "anything being carried out against a person without their consent" is wrong, I reckon 100% would agree with this as true.
Some might be tempted to argue that punishing offenders could constitute punishing someone would fit under the same heading, that could be dealt with by adding "and those who by doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result."

It instead does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that likely all 100 would 'intuitively" agree it is wrong.

This still does not show us where the 100 got the initial idea from. Is it an external source (such as religion, social instruction/each other et al) or is this sourced within the fabric of the human psyche?

Why then is this 'intuitive giver' so highly successful here in this scenario, but when it comes to MANY other topics of morals, the answers are not then nearly as universal? Is it because of a), b), c), or d)? And why?

Let's examine the options you suggest.
a) is there more than one giver,
b) does this giver change his mind
c) is 'evil forces' blocking some of the requests
d) other?


If I am to accept the notion that all morality is sourced within the personalities psyche and follow the conceptual adage the 100 follow that "wrong" is identified as;

Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.


then those who practice not doing wrong, would not have to even think about answering a) b) c) or d).

Those who choose to not follow/break that rule might have to consider the 4 options you give here.

[POI]

Each option can of course be integrated.

Not for the Christian. If you adopt some other flavor, maybe? But it would still be interesting to explore to see where it lands...

Let's go with that reckoning and say that 100% would answer the same. Would the answer vary if it were a different age group being asked about? Let's assume it would not. Now we can adjust the reckoning to read "if 100 were asked if "raping" and "murdering" anyone was wrong, no one would first ask for what the actual definitions of "rape" and "murder" are, in this specific scenario".

Yes, this is why I specified. Maybe it is not so "obvious" at that point. Maybe a multiple time sex offender "has it coming" when they are placed in jail? Maybe some "intuitions" are to seek revenge here while others have differing intuitions? Some intuitions seek capital punishment, some seek jail time alone, some seek other. Which would then require the human to ask this "invisible agency" for the answer. But guess what, the answers will likely now vary. So, we are right back to what I asked of you prior. Why is this "invisible giver" so successful sometimes in providing a universal answer, and widely not so successful other times? What's your answer here?

This still does not show us where the 100 got the initial idea from. Is it an external source (such as religion, social instruction/each other et al) or is this sourced within the fabric of the human psyche?

Well, for the Christian, it poses quite the problem, doesn't it? Why? Christians will argue we get our intuitions from God. Okay. Then why is he only ~100% successful in specific moral situations, but widely not-so in others?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #163]

Yes, this is why I specified. Maybe it is not so "obvious" at that point. Maybe a multiple time sex offender "has it coming" when they are placed in jail? Maybe some "intuitions" are to seek revenge here while others have differing intuitions? Some intuitions seek capital punishment, some seek jail time alone, some seek other. Which would then require the human to ask this "invisible agency" for the answer. But guess what, the answers will likely now vary. So, we are right back to what I asked of you prior. Why is this "invisible giver" so successful sometimes in providing a universal answer, and widely not so successful other times? What's your answer here?

Why are you now including types of punishment re intuition?

I am referring to intuition re what is right/wrong and something we appear to have as an internal mechanism which we can mindfully access.

This still does not show us where the 100 got the initial idea from. Is it an external source (such as religion, social instruction/each other et al) or is this sourced within the fabric of the human psyche?

Well, for the Christian, it poses quite the problem, doesn't it?

I don't think that is the case across the spectrum of Christianity, but it is a prevalent belief that "God" exists in some external realm. Certainly it is not the case (of belief) within the totality of Theism, as some atheists have been implying/arguing.

Christians will argue we get our intuitions from God.

And that God is an external being, separate from the minds of human personalities.

Other theists (as well as some Christians) believe that God is not separate from human mindfulness and that intuition is evidence supporting that God is within said mindfulness and that said human mindfulness is also within God-mindfulness. The mindfulness itself is what God "breathed" into the form to give it life.
This means that whether we intuit it, know it, or even reject/deny it, IF such is the case, THEN there is no escaping that. Even atheists who accept morality is sourced internally/through mindful processing cannot escape that, if it turns out to be true.

Okay. Then why is he only ~100% successful in specific moral situations, but widely not-so in others?

What makes you think the God-mind is masculine? Could it be baggage from a former Christian perspective/belief?

I think you agree with the adage;

Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.

What gives you cause to believe or argue that this is not an intuitive thing sourced in God-Mindfulness?

You are not forced to accept that it is, correct? But you are forced to accept the adage, 100% are you not?
Or is it not a case of being forced, but one of accepting the rightfulness of said adage?

So to answer your question, would you not agree that IF God-mindfulness is a true internal thing, THEN it (this specific moral) has been, is and will continue to be 100% successful in regard to the psyche of the human personality that you are experiencing being BECAUSE you choose to follow the logic of said adage.

The question is, why would you deny that as being the case? Is it because you have been told to look for "God" outside of your self, believed that to be true, discovered it wasn't and decided therefore that "God does not exist" and that you do not exist within a created thing?

[POI]

Why are you now including types of punishment re intuition? I am referring to intuition re what is right/wrong and something we appear to have as an internal mechanism which we can mindfully access.

Maybe I need to explain better. Between you and I, maybe 'rape' is situational as well, instead of a hard-and-fast rule for the "Christian"? Example: The rape victim turns out to be, himself, a prison inmate who is a convicted serial pedophile. Maybe my 'gut feelings' or 'intuitive senses' is/are happy they are earnestly being sodomized, over and over again? I do not think the rape of this pedophile is bad? Not everyone's 'intuitive senses' will be the same here. Why not? They are all the same if we were to hear of a 3-year-old receiving the same treatment. Maybe it is because there exists no 'invisible giver' at all? Otherwise, you again need to start searching for maybe some (logical and/or rational) answers to make sense of the fact that this "giver" is 100% successful about the intuition of the 3-year-old victim, but not also with the prison inmate. Maybe other natural processes are in play, which have absolutely nothing to do with any "invisible giver" at all? Otherwise, yours and my intuitions would be relatively consistent across the board.

This still does not show us where the 100 got the initial idea from. Is it an external source (such as religion, social instruction/each other et al) or is this sourced within the fabric of the human psyche?

Well, we know humans exist, and we also know the self exists. But I guess, since we cannot disprove a negative -- (invisible giver), you can still successfully fabricate one. But, as I stated prior, how many hoops will one need to jump through to maintain the rationale of this asserted and unproven concept?

I don't think that is the case across the spectrum of Christianity, but it is a prevalent belief that "God" exists in some external realm. Certainly it is not the case (of belief) within the totality of Theism, as some atheists have been implying/arguing.

Well yes, we do have the fringe groups too. Maybe the "Unitarians" count as well, for example? But if we are to embrace "classical Christianity", this test exposes a problem, with very little perceived workarounds, other than to maybe shrug the shoulders. If "intuitive senses" are given by a giver, then the success rate should be the same with all "moral" topics, not only some.

What makes you think the God-mind is masculine? Could it be baggage from a former Christian perspective/belief?

As you would ask, why split hairs? I have to refer to this perceived and asserted agency as something. For the most part, I feel I've been quite consistent in referring to this agency as an "invisible intuition giver."

Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.

Or in this case, since we are speaking about 'rape', maybe it depends on the rape victim? If my "gut" gets giddy to know that a known serial child rapists then gets raped in prison, why is this 'giver' not giving everyone the same 'intuitive sense' I receive?

What gives you cause to believe or argue that this is not an intuitive thing sourced in God-Mindfulness?

I'd say you need to prove there is "an intuitive thing sourced in God-Mindfulness", not the other way around. I cannot prove a negative. But I'm getting dang close, in demonstrating that our intuitions only align, when certain specific scenarios are presented. Otherwise, our intuitions for all other "moral" topics differ.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #165]

Maybe I need to explain better. Between you and I, maybe 'rape' is situational as well, instead of a hard-and-fast rule for the "Christian"? Example: The rape victim turns out to be, himself, a prison inmate who is a convicted serial pedophile. Maybe my 'gut feelings' or 'intuitive senses' is/are happy they are earnestly being sodomized, over and over again? I do not think the rape of this pedophile is bad? Not everyone's 'intuitive senses' will be the same here. Why not?

Yes. There are no doubt many who think as you do. Rape is "bad" in some circumstances and "good" in others.

You are essentially asking why - if there is an intuitive "voice" within telling you one type of rape is acceptable and another type is not, should you think that this "voice" is anything but your own.

Yet if the constant is;

Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.

and you turn a blind eye to that in certain circumstances, how is it you are able to do this IF there is such a thing as an "invisible giver"?

Well, we know humans exist, and we also know the self exists. But I guess, since we cannot disprove a negative -- (invisible giver), you can still successfully fabricate one.

How do we know it is fabricated? Many theists are of the understanding it is simply something which is within one's psyche (the subconscious mind) but not necessarily consciously known to be and even actively denied to be. The fabrication can just as easily claimed to be in the denial.

But, as I stated prior, how many hoops will one need to jump through to maintain the rationale of this asserted and unproven concept?

What makes you think jumping through hoops is part of the process?

I don't think that is the case across the spectrum of Christianity, but it is a prevalent belief that "God" exists in some external realm. Certainly it is not the case (of belief) within the totality of Theism, as some atheists have been implying/arguing.

Well yes, we do have the fringe groups too. Maybe the "Unitarians" count as well, for example?

Did you come from a rather large christian denomination who thought of such groups as "fringe"?

But if we are to embrace "classical Christianity", this test exposes a problem, with very little perceived workarounds, other than to maybe shrug the shoulders.

What do you mean by "classical Christianity"?

What makes you think the God-mind is masculine? Could it be baggage from a former Christian perspective/belief?

As you would ask, why split hairs?

I am not splitting hairs. I am pointing out possible influences which still exist in your personality makeup.

I have to refer to this perceived and asserted agency as something. For the most part, I feel I've been quite consistent in referring to this agency as an "invisible intuition giver."

Is there not also an "invisible receiver"?
Perhaps the underlying question being asked here has to do with why a supposed creator mind would not simply install minds into forms which would allow for the smooth operation of said forms, without the mind therein having to reach for the extra information which can help them to achieve this? Rather than receiving the gift offered, one can also reject the gift being offered.

Why shouldn't it simply be a thing one has, rather than a thing one need recieve? And if it is a thing one has, why shouldn't this thing one has simply be seen as something which requires no "giver" in the first place.

If "intuitive senses" are given by a giver, then the success rate should be the same with all "moral" topics, not only some.

Intuitive senses appear to be only part of the process. As I pointed out in posts answering your "test", questions of morality can be sorted easily enough with the constant.

You can name any moral question you like, put it through the constant and find the answer quickly and effectively.
This has to do with how a "gut feeling" can be shaped into a certain knowledge.

Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.

Or in this case, since we are speaking about 'rape', maybe it depends on the rape victim? If my "gut" gets giddy to know that a known serial child rapists then gets raped in prison, why is this 'giver' not giving everyone the same 'intuitive sense' I receive?

From my perspective the answer is "perhaps because some are not fully integrated with the giver."
If you have no qualms about a serial child rapist getting raped in prison, you have double standards, which would make you a living contradiction not fully integrated with the knowledge of right or wrong (re the constant) and thus conflicted.

What gives you cause to believe or argue that this is not an intuitive thing sourced in God-Mindfulness?

I'd say you need to prove there is "an intuitive thing sourced in God-Mindfulness", not the other way around.

Yes, you would. How does one go about "proving" something to one who is conflicted and remains so until "proof" is provided?
If the "giver" doesn't do so, what can I possibly do about it?
But no, the process doesn't work in that way. One can remain an atheist (or an atheist with religious baggage) and be none the wiser to the day of death. One can also apply the constant without double standard while one is about it, and the result will be that one has succeeded in being a "good" human personality and take that to the "next level" of ones experience even if one does not believe in any such thing.

Therein will be the "proof" you were "looking" for. One may "kick oneself" for not "seeing" the "obvious" but ultimately one may simply "shrug" and get on with it.

I cannot prove a negative. But I'm getting dang close, in demonstrating that our intuitions only align, when certain specific scenarios are presented. Otherwise, our intuitions for all other "moral" topics differ.

Would they though? If the constant was followed accordingly (without double standard) then why should we think differently? The intuition/gut feeling is simply the seed sown. The knowledge is the maturity of the overall process which has the tree producing the fruit (also containing seed which can be sown) and the knowing is way better (all 'round) than piddling about wondering if the initial impetus is given by a mindful "god" or "not" or demanding proof positive.

I would rather end my human experience with knowing than simply wondering, wouldn't you?

If "the giver" isn't "proving" its influence re your human experience and growth as a human personality, is it necessarily the "fault" of the giver? What responsibility does the receiver have in that process? (Can the one even BE a "giver" if the other is not being the receiver?) What baggage does the personality demanding proof carry, that they demand external evidence for an initial wholly subjective process and who told them they should not trust said process because it is subjective?

The fundamental question is, if one does not want to acknowledge God-mindfulness due to a perceived lack of proof, why would that prevent one from following/choosing to adhere to the constant without double-standards or internal conflict?

[POI]

Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.

Sure, a variation of the 'golden rule' could be part of it. But what about if one needs to treat another, or applied punishment for crimes, etc?

Example(s)... Refusing a temporarily painful life-saving procedure. Or, getting what one gets ("eye for an eye") - figuratively speaking. Or others?

you turn a blind eye to that in certain circumstances, how is it you are able to do this IF there is such a thing as an "invisible giver"?

I say it's the opposite. I'm being hyper-vigilant regarding consistency. I notice my 'gut feelings' align with most others regarding the rape of a 3-year-old. But in regard to the pedophile getting raped, my 'gut feelings' then do not align with others. Why is this 'giver' 100% consistent in their 'giving' process here, but not with the pedophile?

How do we know it is fabricated?

We can't know, as proving the negative for the claim of the 'invisible 'giver' is unfalsifiable. I reckon a good starting point is to doubt the claim for something existing until it is proven, especially when claims are placed forth for the "supernatural".

You can name any moral question you like, put it through the constant and find the answer quickly and effectively.

Then there is no need for a 'giver'.

From my perspective the answer is "perhaps because some are not fully integrated with the giver."
If you have no qualms about a serial child rapist getting raped in prison, you have double standards, which would make you a living contradiction not fully integrated with the knowledge of right or wrong (re the constant) and thus conflicted.

And here is where the rubber meets the proverbial road... You now sound like a "theist". The problem is not identifying that this 'giver' is not giving consistent answers to his peeps. No, we instead must fault ourselves. The problem is instead that we are either "stupid" or "evil." Now, I know you are not a 'Christian' per se, but it does appear that you are placing extreme bias towards perceiving an 'invisible giver', of some capacity, is being there as the default position. Why not instead doubt anything is actually there until proven otherwise? Seems we can deduce 'intuitive senses' without any necessity for a 'giver'.

[SiNcE_1985]

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).

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".

?

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.

?

[SiNcE_1985]

Again, I'm pandering to the "theist" in this specific test, not you. Thus, I'm going to answer based upon what seems to be your current position.

Why do human 'intuitive senses' differ, if it is indeed a "giver" who is giving his intuitive senses to us? I mean, a) is there more than one giver, or b) does this giver change his mind, c) is 'evil forces' blocking some of the requests, d) other? Before you answer, consider this... I reckon if 100 were asked if "raping" and "murdering" a 3-year-old was wrong, no one would first ask for what the actual definitions of "rape" and "murder" are, in this specific scenario. It instead does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that likely all 100 would 'intuitively" agree it is wrong. Why then is this 'intuitive giver' so highly successful here in this scenario, but when it comes to MANY other topics of morals, the answers are not then nearly as universal? Is it because of a), b), c), or d)? And why?

I already answered this, sir.

If it is explicitly, blatantly laid out in the Bible that X is wrong (according to God's law), then we will be unanimous on anything in our lives pertaining to X, that is wrong.

If X isn't explicitly, blatantly laid out in the Bible as wrong, then that is where things get flaky so we go to God in prayer and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us.

As extensive as the law is/was laid out in the Old Testament, it doesn't cover every conceivable situation or circumstance...but things like murder, rape, stealing, etc...are laid out clear as day..thus making these things UNANIMOUS on our part.

They are wrong.

Don't know what more of an answer I can give...because we both know it isn't about satisfying answers.

It is all about feeding our confirmation biases.

[POI]

Don't know what more of an answer I can give

You could actually address my question(s). You are not, so I will keep asking you until you answer them, or you stop responding.

If an "invisible intuitive senses giver" gives his 'moral code' to all, then why do our "intuitive senses" differ on many topics/sub-topics? a), b), c), or d)? (i.e.):

a) is there more than one giver, or
b) does this giver change his mind, or
c) is 'evil forces' blocking some of the requests, or
d) other?

Your given answer is irrelevant. Why? You agree "the giver" gives. If 'the Holy Spirit' is giving in a prayer request, it does not matter what is written or not written. It matters what he gives each of us. If many folks ask the same 'Holy Spirit" for the correct answer to the same complex 'moral' question, the answer(s) will likely vary from individual to individual. Thus, is it because of a), b), c), or d)? You do not address a book for your given moral "intuitive senses" in these cases, or regardless.