You guys like to point out voter fraud


I’ll have to get back to you, CSB. I’m limited on internet hours, so I’ve saved your post in a document, and I’ll type up my response offline, and post it later.


Ribeye, specifically cooked medium. Blackened is best of all…


Okay, here we go (finally; and hoping I got all the posting bugs out of it):

1 Flatly disagree. If you use a subjective determination of measure, you’re going to (and do) get people arguing about the correct measurement. Or even whether or not it requires measurement or is appropriate to measure.
2 We’re back to the issue of determining “bad” without an objective basis. Many on the left argue that humans are toxic to the Earth, and it would be better if we were extinct. Many radical feminists argue that males are toxic to humanity, and should at least be enslaved for the “greater” good (women). Determining what’s bad without a solid objective foundation is inevitably going to result in a mishmash warped building guaranteed to collapse sooner rather than later (as opposed to the never promised by God for those who choose to follow Him).

3 I don’t begin to see how in the world you got to this conclusion. To me, this statement reads as completely backward, and I suspect you’re operating on some assumptions rather than reasoning.
4 No, not all the answers will relate to human experience; I think my responses to you are proof of that. Many, maybe even most; but hardly all.
5 No mere mortal can say anything independent of human experience objectively (that’s why God takes care of the objectivity for us). That doesn’t mean that human experience is the last word on morality.

6 I’ve already gone into some of why I think this is nonsense. I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with your approach that I haven’t homed in on yet. I’m still perplexed that you think you can reliably and consistantly derive objective moral absolutes from subjective experience. I think if you understood better how complex morality is, you’d have a better appreciation for what manner of God is necessary to make it work. To a baby or young child, “harm” is not getting what he wants. To an older child, “harm” is he and maybe his family not getting what he wants. Do you think that just because you’re older and more educated, that you know all of relevance that there is to know about morality? You as much as admitted that you didn’t when you acknowledged the difficulty in determining how many lives to trade for how many others. Or the issue that 'Nutjob brought up about whether or not you have loved ones in one group or the other.
7 False. Death came into the world when sin did. God didn’t do that; He told us, in fact, not to sin. The only thing God has done is use the timing of people’s deaths toward His purposes (which, as I noted, are far above our ability to understand).

8 You’re still not addressing the issue of how there can be meaningful morality in a strictly temporal universe (that ends with the death of everything).

9 Does that really change anything fundamentally? Do they still not act on selfish interest? For that matter, do they even perceive “wrong” when they’re the ones doing it, or (if they do; I don’t take it as a given) just when they feel it’s being done to them? And how much higher would the God who created the universe have to be above us in every way, including socially? Why would it have to be impossible that He has method in what we sometimes perceive as madness?

10 Again, what qualifies the others to determine that it’s bad? What if they decide to carry the soccer ball that tell the refs to get stuffed? The equivilent has happened throughout history. Indeed, particularly at the time it was happening, the British would have said that essentially that thing was happening when the American colonies revolted. How do you determine who is right? Majority rules works like crap often as not.
11 Who’s to say that wanting others not to be harmed is required for rationality or sanity? Many an evil despot has been quite sane and knew exactly what they were doing. And related to other arguments, how is “desirability” equal to morality? You’ve got a royal mess in trying to sort out whose desires are valid and whose are not. You haven’t yet provided an objective explanation as to why human survival or freedom from unpleasantness is moral. You’re trying to hang a building in the air without a foundation.
12 I note that you said "they value actions etc." Does possession of nerve endings qualify one do determine morality? What if it leads to assisted suicide? Is that bad? If not, why is any other form of death bad, since we’re all deteriorating?

13 How is what the God who created the entire universe, knows each and every one of us, and provided a way for us to survive our own sin so trivial as to be described as “nothing other than?”
14 I don’t know that I would do it; maybe the nuke was headed for Sodom, and I was diverting it to Bethlehem. Or, maybe it’s WWII, and I diverted it from Berlin to a small town in England. Or, maybe there was something I didn’t know about going on in the big city that I didn’t know about that would have resulted in the deaths of billions if the nuke didn’t hit them. God would know that; I wouldn’t. Lack of comrehensive knowledge of a situation without supernatural moral guidance can and frequently does result in a ghastly mess. And I question if your own feeling of certainty would hold up well if you were actually tested in the scenario you presented.
15 I just realized that what you mentioned from 'Nutjob is what I was addressing in my last point. But here’s another point to that divert-the-nuke scenario: How, if you actively take the choice to divert it, can you realistically say that it’s the moral choice? Leaving all the other complicating factors aside for the moment, you’re not choosing the greater good; you’re choosing the lesser evil. How much of that can your “moral calculus” take before it adds up to zero?
16 Is that all…

17 And the answer is: The verifiable historicity of the Bible, and the verifiable lack thereof of the Quran.


CSB refuses to even acknowledge the EXISTENCE of God, so, having no knowledge of Him, cannot relate to what He commands and what He provides. Nowhere in the Judeo-Christian ethic is the claim made that God “protects” humankind from our own folly. That’s what “free will” is all about.


That’s just wrong.

When has anyone ever argued that 1 meter (or other measurement) isn’t 1 meter? You’re confusing correctly applying the distance that is a meter with the agreement that a specific physical distance is (or is not) a meter (or whatever measurement is in question).

That is, no one pulls out a meter stick and has other people arguing that it’s not actually a meter, but if I measure something and say that it’s 50 meters, someone might believe that I didn’t measure correctly.

Now having said that, the fact that people disagree about subjective concepts is a strength, not a flaw. It’s the disagreements that require people to provide evidence and evaluate the reasons for holding certain values over others. As knowledge changes and gets better we’re forced to revisit old claims.

I’ve said this already, but I’ll say it again. You expect me to believe that you need an objective definition of the word “bad” in order to determine that being punched in the face is “bad”? I mean I assume you don’t want to be punched in the face because it would hurt and cause injury. What is the word “bad” if not with respect to its consequenses.

That does nothing to invalidate anything I’ve said. Remember that disagreement on right and wrong, good and bad is the mechanism by which progress in the moral sphere (social or scientific etc) are made. People challenge the accepted orthodoxy.

Having said that, you seem to have this arrogant and self-serving view that humans shouldn’t have to work for the position we’ve acquired at the “top of the food chain”. That we simply belong here. I don’t hold that view. If humans fail to value their own well-being freedom from unwanted and unjustified harm, then we may very well fall from that position based on the subjective choices we make as a species.

As long as we choose to value the well-being, health, and freedom from unwanted and unjustified harm, something that is literally hard-wired into us, then everything else can be looked at objectively with respect to those desires.

That’s not much of an argument. It seems more a baseless claim without any reasonable justification. As a matter of fact, it sounds like a justification to believe what you believe, but without telling me why.

Having said that…

I assert that being harmed, caused to suffer, going hungry and being sick is “bad”. See how easy that is?

When you get punched in the face your body reacts, physically and psychologically. The body literally punishes you into action by causing sensations we feel like pain and if you want to end that punishment most sane people would do what they can from being punched again.

When your wife rubs your back (assuming that she has), do you choose to feel that as “good”? No. It’s not a choice, it objectively feels good, how good is a matter of subjective experience, but it feels good (unless she’s really bad at it:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

There is nothing subjective about the fact that these states cause harm (or pleasure) to the human body and mind. In the case of harm, there are objective actions which you can take to limit the harm that you receive.

It’s simple. God says murder is immoral, why? Because it causes suffering? No. Because it deprives people of their freedom? No. Because it rips apart our social fabric? Nope.

Why? Because god says so.


Does god value human life?

If no, then this was easy.

If yes, clearly that’s a subjective_choice_ that god has made. Objectivity cannot come from a subjective choice.

If you try to say that what god is objective by definition (a logical fallacy that renders the word “objective” meaningless). All you’re doing now simply creating a god in your own image and ascribing to god your subjective wants and desires. Talk about assumptions rather than reasoning… However, you can do that if you want, I simply reject this claim outright because it violates the rules of logic.

Things can be objective with respect to a subjective choice, I’ve given examples. Is it wrong to carry a soccer ball while you’re playing the game of soccer? Yes, IF you are playing soccer. But, is there anything about the game of soccer itself that’s objective? Nope. So carrying soccer balls is only objectively wrong within the boundaries of the game of soccer.

You address that people violate the rules all the time. Sure, and what happens to people that violate rules? They are disciplined or tossed out of the group.

Can you think of social group that created rules and failed to follow them or applied them unfairly? What happens to groups like that? They are weak and ineffectual and eventually, they collapse. Thus, logically, the reasonable rationale for following the rules is harm to everyone within that group.

That’s not it. I don’t accept that so-called “moral absolutes” exist. What I do accept is the fact that I experience reality. Most of it causes harm, pain, sickness, and suffering that I want to avoid. When I’m hurt or am hungry, those are objective experiences and my values arise out of a desire to avoid them. Once I’ve reached this point I know that there are objectively best ways to achieving those values.

I’m hungry. I value freedom from the pain and suffering that hunger causes. Eating is objectively the best way to avoid hunger.

Other people are hungry. I know what hunger feels like. I understand the consequences of hunger and I’m capable of empathy. I know that if I help other people eat that since most other people understand the consequences of their actions are also capable of empathy, that helping others (might, depending on who you are) make me “feel good”, but is also part of a complex social structure that might benefit me and those I care about in the long run.

There is NOTHING illogical about that. However, there can be more than one way to achieve these goals and those goals are made much more complex when different groups cause harm to each other.

Conversely, if I’m selfish and don’t help others an only myself, how do you think other people will treat me? Will they embrace me or reject me?

If you need to test this theory, next time you’re at a birthday party, eat all the cake, insist that they sing for you and take all the presents. Do you think you will ever be invited to another birthday?

See how that works? Do you really need an objective definition of right and wrong to know that selfishness behavior in other people is something you’d rather not be around?

Social structures are subjective, but they have very predictable outcomes based on the things we value.

THis is a flaw in your understanding of what I’m trying to tell you. Morality is a social concept, not an individual one. If you were all alone, what use would you have for morals? Thus, people don’t define morality as individuals, rather they decide whether or not they want to follow the socially defined morals whatever they are.

If you think that a socially acceptable idea is wrong, then you should attempt to convince people why. You think homosexuality is morally wrong and you can try to convince others why.

However, because you believe that God is the arbiter of right and wrong the only justification you have is that god says that homosexuality is wrong, because once you start trying to describe why it’s wrong by attempting to show the harm that it causes, you are agreeing with me that right and wrong are based on harm, not because god says so.

Absolutely…There are plenty of rules in sports that are violated. However, what happens to the person/ people that violate the rules?

That’s the point!

I’ve already addressed the rest of this.

But you can’t prove that though testable verifiable repeatable evidence. All you can do is look back hundreds or even thousands of years in history and point to things which you believe prove that your god is real. The problem is, there are at least 12 other religions in the world that do the same and point to similar kinds of evidence as proof.

This leaves us with the following 4 options:

  1. Christianity is true and all the others are wrong
  2. Christianity is wrong and one of the others is right
  3. Christianity and all the others are wrong there is no god
  4. Christianity and all the others are wrong, but there is a god no one has discovered yet.

I’m open to any interpretation that the evidence leads to, until then I will carry out my life as if no one knows if there is a god and if there is, no one has discovered it and more to the point knows what it wants, if anything from us.

Lastly, I find it interesting that people like you believe that historical records for thousands of years ago can be believed, without doubt, but what’s happening right now can be called into question.

There is lots of evidence that the Bible has had several (about 6) major revisions. Rewritten by rulers ofcer the ages. Duteronomy (if memory serves) is the only book that wasn’t heviliy edited in each of the 6 eras.

This is based on studies of language and bible fragments found over thousands of years. This is why it’s so difficult to translate the Bible because different words are used in different contexts within the same paragraph.

Now I’m not going to the source that because I don’t expect that I could EVER convince you that’s true. However, my skepticism is based largely on this idea.

How can you know good and evil if they aren’t based on harm and suffering? To you, they’re just words given to you by a god. If god said genocide is “good” (and apparently he has), then you have to admit that it’s good. Thus, as I’ve said, harm and suffering have nothing to do with how it affects you and I. Only that is des or does not violate what god wants.

It doesn’t “take” anything. It looks at what we value as humans and tries to determine how actions are consistent with those values. That’s it. Sometimes there are no “right and wrong” scenarios defined is clear and easy terms. Sometimes there is only bad and much worse, but if we value freedom from harm, sometimes all we can do is prevent greater harm.

I remain unconvinced and so do billions of other people who follow differeint religions.

You and I are both athiest with respect to religion, I just choose to lack beleif in one more religion than you do.


You continue to misquote me or misunderstand me.

I never said that god should protect you from anything. Just that, from a Christian point-of-view right and wrong, aren’t based on what causes harm and suffering. Right and wrong are what god says. If god happens to declare that something that causes suffering is wrong, well, that’s just a coincidence, because If you try to say that god commands something because it causes suffering, then you agree with me.


Nonsense, of course. Have you ever heard of the difference between a statute mile and a nautical mile? BOTH are “miles”. Or how about a ton? There are different ways of measuring what a ton is. Ever heard of a measurement known as a " vara?" There is more than one definition of what constitutes a “vara.”


You got me, until this moment a “vara” was a measurement I hadn’t heard of. Having said that, let’s not stray too far from the point I’m making.

I did a little reading and it appears that in South America the vara was a few inches shorter than what it was in Texas.

But, how does that invalidate what I said? That’s simply two different measures with the same name. What matters is the people that use the measure in the same location agree. If they don’t, people get together, evaluate evidence and decide what works best.

The conversation is about morality, in moral terms were can have a moral concept with the same name, but be different ideas. There’s nothing unusual about that.

Far as a statute and nautical mile, it’s pretty obvious, they are different measures. One was created in Roman times the other was created in (and I had to look this up) 1929. The nautical mile takes into account the world is a sphere and utilizes this fact in measurement…

Having said all of that, you’re getting bogged down in definitions and missing (as usual) the point I made when I used this example.

Measurements are social systems that are determined subjectively, yet are infinitely useful. We don’t need an objective definition of a mile or a vera for them to be useful.

Morality is no different, just because we don’t have moral absolutes doesn’t mean they can’t be useful or that they will devolve into chaos any more than units of measure, without an objective standard, haven’t fallen into chaos.


Okay, it’ll take me a while to respond again, CSB; I’ll get back to you later…


YOU were the one who said that units of measurement were constants that we can rely on. I’ve given you 3 or 4 examples of units of measurement that are anything BUT “constant.” That IS the point.


When is a foot not a foot?

If I say I’m 6’1" do you know EXACTLY how tall I am??


No, I know exactly how tall you THINK you are.


Now you’re just being obtuse.

That’s completely irrelevant. If there is a dispute, it’s not about what 6’1" is, it’s about what I claim to be with respect to that measurement.


If you’re 6’ 3/4" tall and CLAIM to be 6’1" tall, you’re–shall we say–STRETCHING the truth.


You are STILL missing the point.

If you needed to cut a piece of wood exactly 6’1" long (say, +/- 1/32) in order to finish a project, any less or any more and it wouldn’t work. Could you do it?

You know why? Because measurements are a reliable subjective standard that is socially useful even though there is no such thing as an “objective” measurement.

In this case, if you cut that piece of wood 6’ 3/4" it objectively won’t work and no amount of arguing about it will change that fact.


Okay, here we go (I hope I’m getting any format glitches out):

1 This is more of an analogical argument, but when you have no objective basis for measure, no authority, then you’ll have people saying that their yardstick is a meter, their 12-foot carpenter’s tape measure is a meter, their gallon jug is a meter, their eight-ounce balance weight is a meter, and ten minutes on their stopwatch is a meter. And no one will know which to apply to a particular moral measurement. No, it isn’t a wrong argument; sillier things have been argued right here in this forum.
2 And change values for your meter stick. Going back to my building analogy, you build any values on a subjective basis, it’s the same as founding a building in the air; or on quicksand. Your basis shifts, and the building can’t take that.

3 Do I want to be punched? No. But I believe the reasons are founded on solid objectivity. Why do our nerve endings determine morality? You haven’t proven this to me.

4 You claim it to be progress, but how do you know without a solid reference point? Nerve endings again?
5 Sorry, but you pulled this out of your rear end. There’s no arrogance about believing what God said, at least not in and of itself, although some holier-than-thous pervert it into such. Our dominion over the animals is God given. We didn’t do it ourselves; to claim that would be arrogant. And that notion that we as humanity did it ourselves, from my perspective, is. And we already are falling on that basis. By the way, why do human nerve endings trump animal nerve endings?
6 Who did the hard wiring?
7 “Objectively with respect to?”

8 I think the building without a foundation (or founded on sand) is a very sound argument, and you are avoiding it. How is it not an apt analogy? Experience should (not always does, because of what you impied of me (but I would apply it back on you); people often will believe what they want to believe) teach us that nothing merely “is;” either it “is” for a good reason, or it “is” not (not that we always know the reasons). I argue that my building analogy is apt for describing the need for sound structure in a moral framework.
9 Yeah, easy to assert. An assertion isn’t proof. People assert every viewpoint on the planet.
10 Yeah, nerve endings.
11 It feels pleasant. Pleasant feelings don’t define morality; our society is one crap of a mess because of the notion of “if it feels good, do it.”
12 The subjectiveness comes from the notion that “pleasant vs. unpleasant (or harm)” defines morality. How do we even know that the survival of the human race is even a good thing? Especially when, in an atheistic worldview (I’ve brought this up more than once, and don’t feel that you’ve given a satisfactory answer), humanity is going to die, and all the “good” we do is going to come to nought?

13 No. He says so, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate other reasons.
14 Yes, He values what He creates; especially us, who He made in His own image (Genesis 1:26).
15 I find it interesting that you assigned arrogance to my belief regarding humans vis-a-vis animals, and you don’t for yourself vis-a-vis God. How in the universe is the God who knows everything and created the universe not in a position to be absolutely objective? I’m speaking hypothetically, since you don’t believe in God.
16 Your grammer here is unclear to me, but I’ll try to answer on the basis of what I think you’re saying. First of all, see above. God, by being all-knowing, can’t help but be objective. Humans thinking they know better when what God knows is as high above what all of mankind knows as to make us look like bacteria is hubris of the first rank. Again, I’m not clear on what you’re saying, but you’re not proving a logical fallacy here that I can see.

17 You’ve given claimed examples; I’ve made counterclaims against their validity.
18 Says who, the rule writers? Who’s to say that soccer is even a valid game? Or that even games (or anything else) are valid without objective basis? You keep not addressing this.
19 And who defines those boundaries? Especially for morality?
20 Or they toss the rule-makers out and make their own, as was the case with the American Revolution.
21 Welcome to the world of modern moral relativism; they do collapse. And that’s what’s happening even now.

22 Then you’ve got nothing but shifting sands based on nothing but your nerve endings. If you don’t believe in absolute morality, what do you think of absolute truth?
23 Again, nerve endings. And all you’ve got is “moral calculus” (how can there even be such a thing if there are no moral absolutes when math cannot give answers without absolutes (the variables must be filled in)?) which depends on whose nerve endings hold sway.
24 There is nothing stable about it, because by your own words, there are no moral absolutes. It will fall as the building founded upon quicksand, and (as I mentioned in item 21.), that fall is happening even now.

25 Depends. Many a dictator or pimp has harmed others for their own selfish ends, and have been embraced by their victims. I’ve personally been there and done that with an abusive father. I knew what he did was wrong (not all of the reasons were for not liking harm), but I didn’t have any direct experience with anything else, and no awareness that anything else was available. So I clung to the devil I knew. That happens when one is presented with moral ambiguity (lack of moral absolutes).
26 But as noted time and again, the values vary.

27 Says who? Might makes right?
28 Since my example was of someone not getting their own way, he wasn’t totally alone. But I stand by my previous statement. It’s right to use your turn signal whether there’s anybody else to see it or not.
29 I can cite practical examples of what I think is wrong with homosexuality, so in one sense, I do agree, but only to a point. I don’t rely soley (or hopefully, even primarily) on my own flawed understanding or experience of reality for a concept of morality that’s written in quicksand.

30 Absolutely nothing, if they win the American Revolution. Or the Russian Revolution.

31 What does this have to do with the validity of the concept of God’s salvation for man? You’re only addressing your perspective on its likelihood.

And no, they don’t point to similar kinds of evidence; much of Christian scripture is supported independently as I’ve mentioned before. And while I don’t want to go link-chasing, I wouldn’t mind seeing some text for these claims that the scriptures were substantially changed. I think I cited before that there are prophesies for the coming of the Messiah- copies of which predate Jesus by about 250 years- the embodiment of eight of which in one person were calculated to have been several quadrillions (tens of thousands times the number of humans who have ever existed to our current date) to one against; and they were fulfilled in Jesus.

32 First, as I’ve said before, I submit that there is plenty of extra-scriptural evidence for what is in the scriptures. For another, I’ve personally caught the big-three “news” networks in any number of biased or downright BS reporting. Their credibility is nonexistent. If something is happening right now, I need evidence of it from a reliable source. Even most secular historians agree with the historical aspect of most of the scriptures.

33 How can you know good and evil if they’re not absolute?

34 Then you’re back to the lesser evil, because by even by your own unstable morality-equals-absence-of-harm definition, harm results no matter the decision.

35 Many remain convinced that the Holocaust didn’t happen or that the Stalin purge victims weren’t in the millions or tens of millions (not on account of evidence, but not wanting to believe), or that the Earth is flat, or that Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman… I honestly don’t say this to mock you, but I do believe that the evidence is more compelling than you want to believe.
36 I’m afraid I dismiss this as lawyer talk. Although I find it interesting that you used the word “choose.”

I’ve probably made a rabbit-trailing mess of some of this (and I also note some points I find important that either you didn’t address, or I lost it somewhere between RO and my computer), but here it is for you to chew on for a while.


If any of that were true, we would have never landed on the moon or sent a spacecraft to Pluto, submarines would all sink and no one would go in a building.

Do you know why all of these things are possible? Because people overwhelmingly agree on measurements. Not objective measurements, but purely subjective.

Now, why do you think it is that humans can figure out how to take something as subjective as measurements and make them useful without an objective standard?

You, as in you personally can call whatever you want a meter, but if your life depends on using the same meter like everyone else, I bet you can figure it out. It’s not that people can’t make claims about measurements, it’s that when it matters they don’t. They understand what it is, how useful it is and how to use measurements without sliding into chaos.

Same for sickness. No one needs an objective standard for sickness to know what it looks like and feels like.

I’m at a total loss of words. Why do pain and suffering determine right and wrong?

If you can really look in a mirror and say to yourself that the only reason you don’t harm others is that a god tells you not to, then that’s pretty messed up.

There’s no proof, It’s a choice, but it’s a choice based on something here, in the real world based on real experience. You’ve made a different choice. You believe in a god who tells you what’s right and wrong and wants me to believe that without a god you wouldn’t know that murder is bad?

See, I know better, I know you know it’s wrong and even if it were proven beyond any doubt tomorrow that god’s do not exist, you’d still know that murder is wrong.

Again, how can measurements be so useful without a solid reference point?

Take a look at this child:

Is he healthy? How do you know without an objective standard of health, without a “solid reference point”?

Surprised you ask me that. I’ve seen nothing that would convince me there was a thinking mind involved at all.

The answer to this question is in the statement I made:

In other words, desires are subjective, but once we chose those desires, there objective ways to obtain them and fail to obtain them.

Now please don’t ask me why we chose things that feel good and avoid those that don’t. Those are subjective choices that are useful based on our experiences of the world, again, just like measurements or language or the rules of a game. All subjective social agreements that are useful or fun and don’t require an objective point of reference.

Once again, I hate to keep throwing this at you, but it clearly applies.

There are no objective rules for the language. You can, if you want the point to a cup of poison and call it beer, you can even drink it, but your desires and beliefs won’t alter your experience. This is why language, without an objective reference point, is probably even more useful than measurements.

You have to tell me why, languages have been around for 10’s of thousands of years, and the whole system hasn’t devolved into chaos? IN fact, like measurements, these systems almost always get better over time, not worse.

You’ll notice that I rarely call “pleasure” moral. If I have, it was off the cuff and without thinking, because really I believe that all morality is based on freedom from unwanted and unjustified actual or potential pain, sickness, harm, and suffering. Not being harmed is good. If “pleasure” is good it’s only because it isn’t causing you or someone else harm.

I know and can prove that animals exist, you can’t demonstrate that a god exists.

Prove it.

You’ve merely progected that quality onto god.

If I knew everything, that wouldn’t make my choices objective, it would merely make my subjective choice pretty dammed well informed.

God is a being. A being that you claim is all powerful and all knowing. Is it within gods power to make choices?

If yes, then his choices are subjective by definition. You can redefine the word “subjective” and"objective" if you like, but you’ll have to forgive me if I find your attempt to be right by definition, lacking in the “compelling argument” department.

If no, then god can’t be all powerful, can he?

Again, we can use language or measurements or the rules of a game. As I said, you can choose to call a cup of poison “beer”. You can even drink it doesn’t change what it is and it doesn’t change the fact that people, without an objective standard of language, that understands English and know what poison and beer are won’t drink it because of the harm it causes.

The fact the people might dispute some words, or choose not to recognize their meanings doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said.

You have to explain how language has made the creation of submarines and floating cities we call aircraft carriers, or built buildings a quarter mile tall and sequenced the human genome.

All the mistakes and arguments and disagreements have done nothing to stop these things from happening and none of them could have happened without language.

Proving the point that even an imperfect subjective standard can be infinitely useful and won’t crumble without an objective standard.

One need only imagine a person that is all alone, let’s say raised by machines. Do you think the concept of right and wrong would even occur to that person? Can’t imagine why.

Who said, “might makes right”?

So if you were the last person left alive, you would still use your turn signal? That seems kinda weird. Since turn signals were invented to let other people know what you’re going to do.

Now you’re trying to have it both ways. You want to claim that experience is the justification for right and wrong, but when I say it, you tell me I’m wrong.

Is the concept of language written in quicksand? Measurements? So why is morality so much different in your opinion?

Finding the obscure exceptions to what I’ve said doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said in the context I’ve said it, because I’m the one that believes that morality is subjective. Would you agree that people reacted to unpleasant experiences in the case of the Russian and American Revolutions? So people took action based on the perception of wrong or harm, nothing inconsistent there.

You haven’t demonstrated that there is such a thing as “God’s salvation”.

But the credibility of Christian claims isn’t?

Shall I grab some links of Christian thought time that have made claims about god that have turned out to be wrong?

How are those claims any different than any you might make right now?

Even if your right, and there is a historical basis for scripture, it’s still a HUGE to infer a god.

Evil (if we are talking about people and the actions they take) are those that perpetuate unwanted and unjustified severe harm and suffering on others and take pleasure in it.

Again, I don’t have to have an absolute standard of sickness to know that I don’t want lung cancer.

If there is a fixed point in any of this, its the objective result of extreme harm and suffering, which is death.

Everything is measured with respect to that objective state. Harm and suffering can lead to unhealthy states and unhealthy states are closer to death.


How do you then explain masochism? There are people so warped that pain actually gives them “pleasure”…some to the point of sexual orgasm.


Okay, I don’t know what happened here, but I suddenly can’t view the last several days’ posts on this thread. I copied everything from your last post, CSB, so I’ll be able to respond in a day or three. I don’t know if anyone else is seeing what I’m seeing, though…


Okay, now it all came back…