Aliens?

[kevin]

yes.

they are accurate winesses to what they themselves experienced, which is that somebody told them a certain story.

they have nothing to say about the accuracy of the story itself.

the story of jesus is all stuff people were told. none of the gospels identify their author. none of them constitute eyewitness testimony, being one or more steps removed from the eyewitness.

[dutchy]

yes.

they are accurate winesses to what they themselves experienced, which is that somebody told them a certain story.

they have nothing to say about the accuracy of the story itself.

the story of jesus is all stuff people were told. none of the gospels identify their author. none of them constitute eyewitness testimony, being one or more steps removed from the eyewitness.

Not only that, but something equally glaring.
People in a rural wasteland like Galilee without education would have never given testimonies as currently written in the NT.
The rewritten supposed testimonies come from people with a totally different educational background who not simply wrote down the leftover snippets about what people testified about Jesus, but their own retake to fit their preferred theological narrative. Therefor the four gospels have so many things completely different compared to the others. Four different authors with four different agenda's that may be as sincere as they thought they were. It's inevitable they write it the way they ''see' it.

When you write a song as an amateur musician and ask a pro mixer/studio to finalize your music, it will mostly end up as something that has little resemblance with your own home made recordings.  

That's what professionals do, it's irresistible for them. To ''change for the better''...so they think.
Even ''one on one'' interviews are criticized frequently, where the person being interviewed claims he was quoted wrongly and out of context. And that is a direct line of conversation. 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

"We are living in a watershed moment," Dr. Christopher Bader, a professor at Chapman University, told The Wall Street Journal in a story published Monday, adding that congressional hearings on alien life "have legitimized the discussion of UFOs in a way that is virtually unprecedented."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ufo-community-grows-rapidly-after-whistleblower-testimony-makes-national-headlines-watershed-moment/ar-AA1mIdj8?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=43a4c375fca94234a1875d986380dc99&ei=40

[Francis]

"We are living in a watershed moment," Dr. Christopher Bader, a professor at Chapman University, told The Wall Street Journal in a story published Monday, adding that congressional hearings on alien life "have legitimized the discussion of UFOs in a way that is virtually unprecedented."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ufo-community-grows-rapidly-after-whistleblower-testimony-makes-national-headlines-watershed-moment/ar-AA1mIdj8?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=43a4c375fca94234a1875d986380dc99&ei=40

Interesting.  What drew me to this post is that at one time, I took some classes at Chapman University and lived down the street from the university.

But personally,  I don't believe that "space aliens"... (sentient life like us with a moral nature) and "UFOs" (spacecraft flown by the above space aliens).. exist.

But I certainly have no doubt that we will witness and experience some strange phenomena.

But that is just my personal opinion.

Blessings

[Kiahanie]

••••

••••
But personally,  I don't believe that "space aliens"... (sentient life like us with a moral nature) and "UFOs" (spacecraft flown by the above space aliens).. exist.
••••

"sentient life like us with a moral nature". That is an interesting comment. Leaving aside the anthropocentricity, it once again raises the issue of where morals come from.

In an earlier thread (Do Morals Evolve) I suggest that morals are an emergent feature of social activity. Unsocial critters (like large feline males and smaller felines) would have no morals. Cetaceans and canines would, and likely large female felines as well.

Now, "space aliens." If they are stuck on their own planet, they could well be anti-social and amoral. However, any that arrive at our planet would be social creatures with morals: asocial critters would never get off-planet.

It will be interesting to compare moral systems if they get here. Or we get there.

[Francis]

••••

••••
But personally,  I don't believe that "space aliens"... (sentient life like us with a moral nature) and "UFOs" (spacecraft flown by the above space aliens).. exist.
••••

"sentient life like us with a moral nature". That is an interesting comment. Leaving aside the anthropocentricity, it once again raises the issue of where morals come from.
In an earlier thread (Do Morals Evolve) I suggest that morals are an emergent feature of social activity. Unsocial critters (like large feline males and smaller felines) would have no morals. Cetaceans and canines would, and likely large female felines as well.
Now, "space aliens." If they are stuck on their own planet, they could well be anti-social and amoral. However, any that arrive at our planet would be social creatures with morals: asocial critters would never get off-planet.
It will be interesting to compare moral systems if they get here. Or we get there.

Well there  you go.  Your entire understanding of morals is completely different than my understanding of morals. 

If you are using the word "morals" in the manner of not speaking of "objective morals"... then I agree.  Like atheist Michael Ruse has said, if morals are nothing more than an evolutionary by product and are nothing more than "an emergent feature of social activity"... then morals are no more significant than opposable thumbs in humans, and any deeper meaning is illusory.

The morals I speak of... does have a deeper meaning... a deeper meaning than how you appear to describe your usage and understanding of the word "morals".

In your worldview... it seems that no activity of any kind is absolutely and objectively and intrinsically immoral... just antisocial. So what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do are nothing more immoral or wrong than just being antisocial. 

Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial

If Cetaceans and canines and large female felines have morals, then the fact that we don't put them on trial for harming human beings or anyone else... shows once again that our understanding of the word "morals" is completely different.

Obviously, there is something fundamentally different about humans that differentiates them from the animal world... otherwise, then what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do is no more immoral and has nor more meaning than what unsocial critters (like large feline males and smaller felines) do.

It is in that manner that I speak of an alien's moral nature.  I'm not talking about being antisocial or being social.  The meaning I'm talking is far far far different.

So if aliens are no more morally different than the animal world... then whatever they do among themselves or to us... can't be understood as being objectively and intrinsically immoral or moral.

It is those kinds of aliens that I am open to the possibility of existing.

But not the ind of alien who has a moral nature like humans and who consequently would understand that morals are more than just being social/antisocial and that there are objective and intrinsic morals and so that there are actions that are wrong, even if every human being said the action was not wrong

Blessings

[Kiahanie]

••••

••••

"sentient life like us with a moral nature". That is an interesting comment. Leaving aside the anthropocentricity, it once again raises the issue of where morals come from.
In an earlier thread (Do Morals Evolve) I suggest that morals are an emergent feature of social activity. Unsocial critters (like large feline males and smaller felines) would have no morals. Cetaceans and canines would, and likely large female felines as well.

Now, "space aliens." If they are stuck on their own planet, they could well be anti-social and amoral. However, any that arrive at our planet would be social creatures with morals: asocial critters would never get off-planet.

It will be interesting to compare moral systems if they get here. Or we get there.

Well there  you go.  Your entire understanding of morals is completely different than my understanding of morals. 

Ummmmm.....yes. That seems to have been apparent for a while now.

If you are using the word "morals" in the manner of not speaking of "objective morals"... then I agree.••••

Well, there you go. You know by now I would not be speaking of objective morals. The rest of the post is not really necessary, but I do hope you explain those "objective morals".

••••
In your worldview... it seems that no activity of any kind is absolutely and objectively and intrinsically immoral... just antisocial. So what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do are nothing more immoral or wrong than just being antisocial. 

Wrong. I have never said that, and that is not an implication of my position. That is a fine example of a strawman: an invented position to argue against.
 

•••
Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial
••••

You keep talking about objective morals without saying what they are, where they can be found, how one knows when one has one, so I do not need to reply to most of this.

I was hoping you would explain objective morals, but all you are doing is claiming how right you are. Your objective morals are looking more and more like an imaginary friend.

[Francis]

••••

••••

"sentient life like us with a moral nature". That is an interesting comment. Leaving aside the anthropocentricity, it once again raises the issue of where morals come from.
In an earlier thread (Do Morals Evolve) I suggest that morals are an emergent feature of social activity. Unsocial critters (like large feline males and smaller felines) would have no morals. Cetaceans and canines would, and likely large female felines as well.

Now, "space aliens." If they are stuck on their own planet, they could well be anti-social and amoral. However, any that arrive at our planet would be social creatures with morals: asocial critters would never get off-planet.

It will be interesting to compare moral systems if they get here. Or we get there.

Well there  you go.  Your entire understanding of morals is completely different than my understanding of morals. 

Ummmmm.....yes. That seems to have been apparent for a while now.

If you are using the word "morals" in the manner of not speaking of "objective morals"... then I agree.••••

Well, there you go. You know by now I would not be speaking of objective morals. The rest of the post is not really necessary, but I do hope you explain those "objective morals".

••••
In your worldview... it seems that no activity of any kind is absolutely and objectively and intrinsically immoral... just antisocial. So what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do are nothing more immoral or wrong than just being antisocial. 

Wrong. I have never said that, and that is not an implication of my position. That is a fine example of a strawman: an invented position to argue against.
 

•••
Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial
••••

You keep talking about objective morals without saying what they are, where they can be found, how one knows when one has one, so I do not need to reply to most of this.

I was hoping you would explain objective morals, but all you are doing is claiming how right you are. Your objective morals are looking more and more like an imaginary friend.

Hello Kiahanie... hope you and your family are all healthy and doing well and prospering.

Ummmmm.....yes. That seems to have been apparent for a while now.

I'm glad that we can finally agree.  But what is not apparently obvious to you (I could be wrong, but that is what it appears to me) is the logical consequence of your position if we take your stated view on a test drive to its logical end/conclusion.  But then maybe you've held back your entire position, and so maybe my perception would change if I knew about the information you are not sharing.

If you are using the word "morals" in the manner of not speaking of "objective morals"... then I agree.

Well, there you go. You know by now I would not be speaking of objective morals.

Answered above.

The rest of the post is not really necessary, ...

Of course it is. Knowledge and inquiry and research and reflection and questions and thinking and searching for truth are always important and necessary.

... but I do hope you explain those "objective morals".

??? I already did in the post that you are responding to.  What was I not clear on?  If you can be specific, I can clarify if needed.  Thanks in advance.

In your worldview... it seems that no activity of any kind is absolutely and objectively and intrinsically immoral... just antisocial. So what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do are nothing more immoral or wrong than just being antisocial.

Wrong. I have never said that, and that is not an implication of my position.

Well... here is the confusion and the rub.   I think it is the implication of your position.  As far as I read your work and listen to your replies and answers.

Maybe you can show me how IT IS NOT an implication of your position?  Thanks in advance.

That is a fine example of a strawman: an invented position to argue against.

Oxford defines stawman as: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"

If I think the logical and implication of your position... as I understand it... is what I've stated above... how can that logically be a strawman if I never intentionally misrepresented your position?  Indeed, I've even nicely asked you to show me where I am wrong and was mistaken in what the implication of your position is.

The most you can say is that I was mistaken... and I agree that is possible since it is sometimes difficult to understand you.

I look forward to your reply because the last thing I want to do is misrepresent you.

Appreciate and love you and your family.  As Christ does.

Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial

You keep talking about objective morals without saying what they are, where they can be found, how one knows when one has one, so I do not need to reply to most of this.

It appears that we can both be mistaken about what the other said and what their position is.

Because I've not only gave this answer in very post that you are replying to, but i've done so in numerous other exchanges we have had in the past.

Objective morals are those morals that are true REGARDLESS of any human opinion... meaning that even if everyone on earth said that pedophilia was ok or that what the Nazis did to the Jews in world war 2 was not wrong... IT IS STILL WRONG. That is to say, certain actions are right or wrong irrespective of what people think

Objective morals are not dependent on human opinions which are always changing and which often contradict each other (as with Nazism, etc).  If there is no objective standard above the opinion of human beings by which to judge human beings... then nothing is objectively immoral.  Because the minute you claim Nazism is wrong... and they disagree with you... you need an objective standard by which to judge Nazism.  But you can't supply an objective moral standard by which to judge who is right and wrong... because if God does not exist, then there is nothing higher or above human beings.

Where can they be found, if objective morals and moral standards exist apart from human opinions?   

Well... they can't be found in nature or in naturalism... and I've cited Darwin and Dawkins and Ruse and Nietzsche and many other atheist thinkers and biologists and philosophers, etc, who agree... and they can't be found in fickle human opinions for which there is no objective standard by which to judge who is right and who is wrong.

Therefore, if they exist... it can't be in nature/naturalism or in human opinions.  The only place left is God (I think kevin agrees with that much)... with God being defined as a perfect being who's very nature is perfect in all ways and who can't make a mistake.

Which is why I have repeatedly said that the prima facie issue on this forum is whether on not theism or atheism, is the most likely and reasonable proposition/position.

I was hoping you would explain objective morals, ...

I was hoping you would remember the numerous time I have in the past.

... but all you are doing is claiming how right you are.

Since I've supplied the Oxford definition for "strawman"... I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that you are simply mistaken.

Your objective morals are looking more and more like an imaginary friend.

I have no imaginary friends... and since I've supplied the Oxford definition for "strawman"... I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that you are simply mistaken.

Blessings to you and your family

[Kiahanie]

••••
 Your objective morals are looking more and more like an imaginary friend.

••••

••••

I'm glad that we can finally agree.  But what is not apparently obvious to you ••• is the logical consequence of your position if we take your stated view on a test drive to its logical end/conclusion.  ••••

Your condescension never ceases to amaze me.

But sure. Go ahead. Choose your system of formal logic and go for a drive. You might want to set up another thread, though.
morals".

[Kiahanie]

In your worldview... it seems that no activity of any kind is absolutely and objectively and intrinsically immoral... just antisocial. ••••

Wrong. I have never said that, and that is not an implication of my position.

Well... here is the confusion and the rub.  I think it is the implication of your position.  As far as I read your work and listen to your replies and answers.

Maybe you can show me how IT IS NOT an implication of your position?  Thanks in advance.

No, Francis. You tell me how you think it is an implication, then we will discuss your reasoning. Logically. Choose your formal logic system.

[Kiahanie]

... but I do hope you explain those "objective morals".

??? I already did in the post that you are responding to.  What was I not clear on?  If you can be specific, I can clarify if needed.  Thanks in advance.

Once again:
Where does one find objective morals?
What are the moral values of that objective moral system?
How does one know if one has objective morals?

•••• What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral••••

You keep talking about objective morals without saying what they are, where they can be found, how one knows when one has one, so I do not need to reply to most of this.

••••
Objective morals are those morals that are true REGARDLESS of any human opinion... ••••
••••
Objective morals are not dependent on human opinions
••••
... they can't be found in nature or in naturalism... •••... and they can't be found in fickle human opinions
•••• Therefore, if they exist... •••• The only place left is God••••

You talked a lot about what objective morals are not, not much about what they are, where/how they can be found, how you know when you've got one. It would be interesting to know which particular objective morals you know about.

Let's try something specific. What, if any, objective moral values are involved in premarital sex?

[Maria-Juana]

Oh, for the love of god, please start this thread!
I would love to hear this conversation.

Let's try something specific. What, if any, objective moral values are involved in premarital sex?

[8livesleft]

Oh, for the love of god, please start this thread!
I would love to hear this conversation.

Let's try something specific. What, if any, objective moral values are involved in premarital sex?

I second the motion!

[Kiahanie]

Waiting......

[Kiahanie]

••••
Therefore, if [objective morals] exist... it can't be in nature/naturalism or in human opinions.  The only place left is God ••••

This snippet is worth some discussion. You set objective morality (OM) as a conditional. ("IF it exists....") You also establish your god as being conditional (the greatest thing imaginable, the most reasonable inference).

I do not understand how you get objectivity out of that tangle of subjectivity. Maybe the new thread on sex will illuminate your thinking.

[Kiahanie]

••••
Which is why I have repeatedly said that the prima facie issue on this forum is whether on not theism or atheism, is the most likely and reasonable proposition/position.
••••

You are leaving out agnosticism, which seems the most reasonable for most people. You tend to invent binary conditions for your arguments. That is usually a misrepresentation of reality, which is not particularly binary.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial

In your view, what is the difference between what is moral and what is immoral?

[8livesleft]

they can't be found in nature or in naturalism...

Why? What do you have against nature?

[Francis]

Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial

In your view, what is the difference between what is moral and what is immoral?

Hello Jst,   I'm slammed at work because it is Black History month and I've got a ton of videos I have to produce... but I wanted to answer your question.

I  think the answer is in the above quote of mine.  I specifically was not referring to "moral" and "immoral"... but was instead being deliberate in using the words "objective intrinsic moral" and "objective intrinsic immoral".

If we simply use the word "moral"... then Oxford defines moral as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do".

But you can see right away, that a person's standards of behavior or beliefs will be different between a Nazi and a pedophile and people who are not a Nazi, etc.

If you ask your question to a Nazi or a sadist, etc... they will give you one answer... but if you ask someone who is not a Nazi or a sadist, etc... they will give you a different answer.

And so in the end... the difference between what is moral and what is immoral is totally dependent on who you are asking.

Well... that certainly doesn't tell us what is really wrong and right since people will have contrary answers that contradict each other.

And so to me... to be able to know... to have an objective standard on which to ground the question/answer of what is truly and really and intrinsically wrong or right, has to be found outside of human beings since human beings disagree with each other.

And that is why I've defined an objective moral as being something that is right or wrong IRRESPECTIVE of what humans say.  So like, I think Nazism and murdering and torturing and experimenting on Jews like animals (or on anyone else) is immoral even if everyone on earth said it was moral and not wrong.

Well... if  that is true, and if thus, morals... objective morals are not found in human opinion... then where or what else would be the foundation for judging between humans... between Nazism and non Nazis, etc?

And it can't be nature (evolution) and/or naturalism... since Dawkins and Darwin and Ruse and many other brilliant atheist thinkers have all shown that is not the location... then to me... the only other possible place left is in God's perfect nature... and in His perfect moral nature.

Now comes the prima facie question and for the existence of this forum... does God exist or not?

In the past on this forum, I've given lots of examples of very bright people... atheists and agnostics and lawyers and philosophers, etc... who are involved in civil rights and the question of what is right and wrong... who have shown that every model that is based on human constructs...  all such human models fails the question of "sez who?".

I think it was the late ARTHUR ALLEN LEFF, (an agnostic) and a brilliant Duke Law professor... who is famous for that phrase.

In 1979 he wrote a brilliant paper entitled "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law".  And I have cited other papers as well.

But anyway, like I said, I'm slammed all week in the work I have to do... but I will try and get back to you if you have any clarification questions.  But no guarantees because of my schedule this week.

God Bless you sir

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial

In your view, what is the difference between what is moral and what is immoral?

Hello Jst,  I'm slammed at work because it is Black History month and I've got a ton of videos I have to produce... but I wanted to answer your question.

I  think the answer is in the above quote of mine.  I specifically was not referring to "moral" and "immoral"... but was instead being deliberate in using the words "objective intrinsic moral" and "objective intrinsic immoral".

If we simply use the word "moral"... then Oxford defines moral as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do".

But you can see right away, that a person's standards of behavior or beliefs will be different between a Nazi and a pedophile and people who are not a Nazi, etc.

If you ask your question to a Nazi or a sadist, etc... they will give you one answer... but if you ask someone who is not a Nazi or a sadist, etc... they will give you a different answer.

And so in the end... the difference between what is moral and what is immoral is totally dependent on who you are asking.

Well... that certainly doesn't tell us what is really wrong and right since people will have contrary answers that contradict each other.

And so to me... to be able to know... to have an objective standard on which to ground the question/answer of what is truly and really and intrinsically wrong or right, has to be found outside of human beings since human beings disagree with each other.

And that is why I've defined an objective moral as being something that is right or wrong IRRESPECTIVE of what humans say.  So like, I think Nazism and murdering and torturing and experimenting on Jews like animals (or on anyone else) is immoral even if everyone on earth said it was moral and not wrong.

Well... if  that is true, and if thus, morals... objective morals are not found in human opinion... then where or what else would be the foundation for judging between humans... between Nazism and non Nazis, etc?

And it can't be nature (evolution) and/or naturalism... since Dawkins and Darwin and Ruse and many other brilliant atheist thinkers have all shown that is not the location... then to me... the only other possible place left is in God's perfect nature... and in His perfect moral nature.

Now comes the prima facie question and for the existence of this forum... does God exist or not?

In the past on this forum, I've given lots of examples of very bright people... atheists and agnostics and lawyers and philosophers, etc... who are involved in civil rights and the question of what is right and wrong... who have shown that every model that is based on human constructs...  all such human models fails the question of "sez who?".

I think it was the late ARTHUR ALLEN LEFF, (an agnostic) and a brilliant Duke Law professor... who is famous for that phrase.

In 1979 he wrote a brilliant paper entitled "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law".  And I have cited other papers as well.

But anyway, like I said, I'm slammed all week in the work I have to do... but I will try and get back to you if you have any clarification questions.  But no guarantees because of my schedule this week.

God Bless you sir

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying.  You seem to use universal acceptance of a moral value as evidence for objective morals.   Will you explain that or if I am misunderstanding?

[Francis]

Well in my worldview... what the Nazis did and what pedophiles do, is more than just being antisocial.  What they did and do is objectively and intrinsically immoral, even if EVERYBODY on earth said what they did and do are not intrinsically and objectively immoral, but just being antisocial

In your view, what is the difference between what is moral and what is immoral?

Hello Jst,  I'm slammed at work because it is Black History month and I've got a ton of videos I have to produce... but I wanted to answer your question.

I  think the answer is in the above quote of mine.  I specifically was not referring to "moral" and "immoral"... but was instead being deliberate in using the words "objective intrinsic moral" and "objective intrinsic immoral".

If we simply use the word "moral"... then Oxford defines moral as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do".

But you can see right away, that a person's standards of behavior or beliefs will be different between a Nazi and a pedophile and people who are not a Nazi, etc.

If you ask your question to a Nazi or a sadist, etc... they will give you one answer... but if you ask someone who is not a Nazi or a sadist, etc... they will give you a different answer.

And so in the end... the difference between what is moral and what is immoral is totally dependent on who you are asking.

Well... that certainly doesn't tell us what is really wrong and right since people will have contrary answers that contradict each other.

And so to me... to be able to know... to have an objective standard on which to ground the question/answer of what is truly and really and intrinsically wrong or right, has to be found outside of human beings since human beings disagree with each other.

And that is why I've defined an objective moral as being something that is right or wrong IRRESPECTIVE of what humans say.  So like, I think Nazism and murdering and torturing and experimenting on Jews like animals (or on anyone else) is immoral even if everyone on earth said it was moral and not wrong.

Well... if  that is true, and if thus, morals... objective morals are not found in human opinion... then where or what else would be the foundation for judging between humans... between Nazism and non Nazis, etc?

And it can't be nature (evolution) and/or naturalism... since Dawkins and Darwin and Ruse and many other brilliant atheist thinkers have all shown that is not the location... then to me... the only other possible place left is in God's perfect nature... and in His perfect moral nature.

Now comes the prima facie question and for the existence of this forum... does God exist or not?

In the past on this forum, I've given lots of examples of very bright people... atheists and agnostics and lawyers and philosophers, etc... who are involved in civil rights and the question of what is right and wrong... who have shown that every model that is based on human constructs...  all such human models fails the question of "sez who?".

I think it was the late ARTHUR ALLEN LEFF, (an agnostic) and a brilliant Duke Law professor... who is famous for that phrase.

In 1979 he wrote a brilliant paper entitled "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law".  And I have cited other papers as well.

But anyway, like I said, I'm slammed all week in the work I have to do... but I will try and get back to you if you have any clarification questions.  But no guarantees because of my schedule this week.

God Bless you sir

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying.  You seem to use universal acceptance of a moral value as evidence for objective morals.  Will you explain that or if I am misunderstanding?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote above.

I'm suggesting that there are actions that are really and truly objectively and intrinsically wrong... irrespective of any human opinions... whether universal acceptance or not.  Human opinion does not tell us what is really wrong... it doesn't tell us what we ought to do or not do in terms of any objective moral obligation. 

How can  that be possible when human opinions differ and contradict each other?  What objective standard are you using by which to judge between contrary human opinions and which can withstand the rejoinder "sez who?"

Did that clarify things?  If not, please let me know where I can be more helpful.

God Bless

[kevin]

you got it right, jst.

[Francis]

Hey Jst, if Kevin said you are correct, then I would listen to him carefully because he is very intelligent and scholarly even though I respectfully disagree with him.  He has admitted that he has made mistakes... just as we all have... and so we must always keep an open mind and test everyone's opinion... including mine and his and everyone.

If you wish to continue the conversation, I'm more than willing to continue.

I enjoy conversing with you because you are smart and insightful and you are a class act all the way.  And civil.

God Bless you sir

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Hey Jst, if Kevin said you are correct, then I would listen to him carefully because he is very intelligent and scholarly even though I respectfully disagree with him.  He has admitted that he has made mistakes... just as we all have... and so we must always keep an open mind and test everyone's opinion... including mine and his and everyone.

If you wish to continue the conversation, I'm more than willing to continue.

I enjoy conversing with you because you are smart and insightful and you are a class act all the way.  And civil.

God Bless you sir

Th

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote above.

I'm suggesting that there are actions that are really and truly objectively and intrinsically wrong... irrespective of any human opinions... whether universal acceptance or not.  Human opinion does not tell us what is really wrong... it doesn't tell us what we ought to do or not do in terms of any objective moral obligation. 

How can  that be possible when human opinions differ and contradict each other?  What objective standard are you using by which to judge between contrary human opinions and which can withstand the rejoinder "sez who?"

Did that clarify things?  If not, please let me know where I can be more helpful.

God Bless

I'm with on this much.  I guess what I am not understanding is your use of examples like child abuse.  How does that fit into the argument?

[Kiahanie]

••••

••••
  What objective standard are you using by which to judge between contrary human opinions and which can withstand the rejoinder "sez who?"
••••

••••

Sez me. I am the ultimate authority in what I believe is moral and immoral. At least I answer questions about it, unlike you and your god. You won't even explain what your standards are for "objective morality."

Pulling rabbits out of a hat is one thing, but pulling "objective morality" out of a hat makes one wonder whether there is any more substance to it than the rabbit trick.

[Francis]

Hey Jst, if Kevin said you are correct, then I would listen to him carefully because he is very intelligent and scholarly even though I respectfully disagree with him.  He has admitted that he has made mistakes... just as we all have... and so we must always keep an open mind and test everyone's opinion... including mine and his and everyone.

If you wish to continue the conversation, I'm more than willing to continue.

I enjoy conversing with you because you are smart and insightful and you are a class act all the way.  And civil.

God Bless you sir

Th

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote above.

I'm suggesting that there are actions that are really and truly objectively and intrinsically wrong... irrespective of any human opinions... whether universal acceptance or not.  Human opinion does not tell us what is really wrong... it doesn't tell us what we ought to do or not do in terms of any objective moral obligation.

How can  that be possible when human opinions differ and contradict each other?  What objective standard are you using by which to judge between contrary human opinions and which can withstand the rejoinder "sez who?"

Did that clarify things?  If not, please let me know where I can be more helpful.

God Bless

I'm with on this much.  I guess what I am not understanding is your use of examples like child abuse.  How does that fit into the argument?

well, to be honest, I'm not sure what you are asking.  And why you specifically ask about child abuse... when the situation is the same for other "immoral" actions. 

There are pedophiles... and even some cultures.... who don't view their actions as child abuse or wrong at all. In fact, mistreating children at the hands of parents or caretakers has a long history of being acceptable in some cultures and there are tons of literature on that.  Literature shows that from ancient times up to present many societies have exercised what it is recognized today as child abuse for various reasons.  Ancient Greece has examples of that.  And I recall there are societies... I think it might have been ancient China, but I'm not sure... which valued male babies over female babies and so mothers would get rid of female babies.

I could go on with lots of examples... so I'm not sure the reason for your question. I apologize for not understanding.

I guess to me, the bottom line is that once again we see that there is no universal agreement or acceptance on whether or not child abuse is morally wrong... which means we are back to square one where we have contrary human opinions as to what is moral and what is immoral.

This is why I don't use HUMAN universal acceptance or rejection of moral values as evidence for objective morals. Because there is no HUMAN universal acceptance or rejection of moral values.  Not even in the case of child abuse.  Morals are whatever people make up for themselves and for their society.

Anyway, I feel like I'm repeating myself. And maybe it is because I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. And I profusely apologize for that

Can you help me to understand what you are asking of me?

God Bless you sir

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Can you help me to understand what you are asking of me?

Okay, it seems I have been misunderstanding you.  I often enjoy your posts but I have not read them all.  I am trying to understand your argument.  If you are willing, maybe I should start at the beginning.

My impression of your argument is that objective morals are evidence for God and that most people's objection to certain heinous acts are evidence for objective morals.  Evidently, I am mistaken.  Thank you for clarifying because that did not make sense to me.

What is the argument you are making, involving objective morals?  



     

[8livesleft]

Discussion on aliens and the possible implication to human gods and religions is interesting.

If those entities decide to force their moral system on us, will it qualify as being "objective?"

[Kiahanie]

^^^^^ Sure, just like Europeans forcing their morals on their colonial subjects was objective.

[Maria-Juana]

^^^^^ Sure, just like Europeans forcing their morals on their colonial subjects was objective.

Excellent example.