I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2014, 10:56 AM
I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
I saw but did not participate in your thread that was ultimately moved to the viper pit and then subsequently closed. I think you behaved yourself rather well and deserve a serious and thoughtful response.

Rules:
1. Not name calling or ad hominem
2. You have to address the points I made. If it becomes clear you either don't understand or don't want to understand what I have to say then I will respectfully bow out (by extension the inverse applies to you as well).
3. No mention of child abuse or sex with children. I don't disagree with your use of it in your previous thread, but the forum has a policy against it and I don't want to get you or myself in trouble.

The following is a summary of my position on absolute truth.

"Truth", as a term used in logic, is something that can be "proven" (meaning validated through argument) with an argument that is deductively valid and sound.

As a minor review on deductive logic - a deductive argument has a rigid structure that denotes truth or falsehood. For example;

if A then B
A
therefore B (conclusion)

This relationships between premises is axiomatically defined as true. Logic as a formal system has rules that are believed to be true by default, whose truth value ought not be questioned at the risk of undermining and making useless the whole philosophy. It is very similar in math, when we say that "1 + 1 = 2". If you undermine the definition of "1" or "+" or "=" or the evaluation of the terms according to the formal rules of mathematics in this formal system, math becomes impossible and absurd. Addition and the definition of integers are axiomatic in that they create the foundation for the formal logic that is mathematics, upon which more elaborate and interesting relationships can be built.

Similarly "truth" is axiomatically defined as definite description of what "is". Already there is somewhat of a problem, because what something "is" is subject to a great deal of interpretation and qualitative assignment, but logic puts that all aside in order to simplify things. "Absolute truth", in the formal philsophy of logic, has no different meaning than "truth". If something is "true" it is absolutely true, certainly true, very definitely true, or what other superfluous descriptor you choose. According to the axiomatic definition of truth in in the formal system of logic, truth does exist, the truth value is unchanging so long as the truth status of supporting premises is unchanging. If this where not true logic as a formal system would not be possible and would be made to be absurd.

When you are using the term "absolute truth", however, you are denoting a meaning and a context that is different and separate from the formal definition of truth in logic. You are meaning "that which can be known with true certainty", or "that which can be known without any level or degree of doubt". Due to the way that we experience the universe this is not possible. Inevitably these conversations lead us to solipsism, so allow me to explain what that is.

Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known with true certainty. Solipsist believe that everything we think we know in the universe can be, however remotely unlikely, false. To put it another way, we can never know for certain that anything is true because it is always some probability greater than zero that it could actually be false.

Before I go further, people in your position are often sorely tempted to retort "is that absolutely true that there is no absolute truth"? Solipsism is an observation, not an argument for or against absolute truth. Solipsism qualifies truth, it does not assign truthhood or falsehood to anything. Interestingly enough if there is a definite universe out there than there are things that are "absolutely true". For example, if there exists a chair, it is absolutely true that a chair exists. What solipsists argue is not that absolute truth doesn't exist, it argues that we, as fallible creatures, cannot be truly certain that something is true. It qualifies our perception, not the truthness or falsehood of things in general.

The reason why I am a solipsists is because I believe that everything I perceive in the world I perceive through my senses. It is a very simple and very old argument; if my senses can be deceived without me being aware of it, then I can be fooled into believing I saw, or touched, or tasted, ect something that I didn't (for example in a dream or a hallucination). If I can be fooled into believing I experienced something that didn't happen, then I can be made to believe things that are false without knowing that they are false. Obviously this is true, we all at least occasionally believe false things. Taking it a step further, it is always true that my perception of the universe could be in error. Therefore everything I think I know could conceivably be false without me knowing.

As a solipsists I have a tendency to look at truthhood or falsehood probabilistically. If something is very, very likely to be true, for example Barrack Obama is the current sitting president of the United States, than I behave as if I am certain that it is true. It is possible that I have been lied to or deceived into believing that the current sitting president of the United States is someone who is not the current sitting president, but it is extremely unlikely given the amount of evidence I have to support it. This brings everything into the realm of inductive arguments.

Inductive arguments are the arguments we typically used every day when describing real things. If I want to claim that Barack Obama exists I produced evidence that he exists. I might show a picture of him, touch him, speak with him, interview people who have interacted with him, produce legal documentation of his birth, education, spending habits,ect. I don't claim for certain that he exists in an inductive logical argument, because it is always possible that my evidence could be correct but my conclusion still false ( it just isn't very likely).

The last couple things I want to say in this post are this; firstly atheism is only the lack of belief in gods. Many atheist argue with the notion of absolute truth, but atheism does not pertain to the subject. If it were true that absolute truth exists and we as humans can be absolutely certain of some truths, it would still need to be demonstrated that there is a god in order for atheism to be false.

Secondly, if absolute truth exists and we can be truly certain of it, the challenge is on you to prove what those absolute truths are and how you can be truly certain of them.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
01-11-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
I wish you the best of luck in getting him to actually "debate."

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
01-11-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Michael, I thank you for the invitation. I accept the challenge, and I accept the terms and rules, no problem. The ONLY OTHER rule I want to add is this is a spam free thread, just between you and I, to eliminate what's already started on this debate Wink Agreed?

I also agree with you that the other thread was a very fair point and question, simply because it IS such a serious problem today. I'm not ashamed of my views and believe them to be beneficial to society....

Tart, special message just to you, and whoever else may chirp in before I can type this out with a little thought behind it... don't make me growl at you, Im not the one who has run from anything Wink

...and that's all I'll say about either of these for now.

Michael, I understand your position and youre certainly allowed your opinion based on your studies and observations. I do obviously disagree with you. I also believe there is a reality within this existence, and that this reality is truth, whether we understand it or not.

To further and simply define my usage of universal absolute truth, I mean something that is true, transcending human approval or opinion. It remains true regardless of the point in time, or the location in space. It remains true even if entire societies believe and act otherwise. As far as I'm concerned this is as solid and dependable as the concept of basic Mathematics.

I think for a good alternate example of universal truth, although it doesn't carry the impact, might be injustice. Injustice may seem like a vague thing, but it would entail many possible injustices. We could say it is NEVER GOOD and ALWAYS WRONG to be unjust toward another person. Unjust implies that the person wronged did not deserve what was inflicted, no matter the culture, and regardless of popular opinion.

I know you could question specific cases of injustice, but my view holds that we KNOW injustices have existed pretty much throughout recorded history. Many times today, in the street, in the churches, in our politics, injustices occur whether we know about them or not... we DO know they occur and some become notable, some may never be known. I believe youd be very hard pressed to say, believe, and then go on to PROVE, that injustices do not exist. People are robbed and plundered, home owners are plundered by con men in suits losing everything, peaceful nations are plundered by other nations. People have choices, and people can fight back in one way or another, but it is STILL ALWAYS wrong when one is treated unjustly.. not deserving of the act perpetrated on them.

When the housing bubble exploded... what happened? Banksters and those being paid to give estimates of a home's worth, collaborated to overvalue the homes for almost 2 decades. People bought these over valued homes for years... but the only easy loans were the ARM's. When the owners would sell again, the home would once again be overvalued... and when it was sold again it was overvalued again... THEN the bankers raised the rate on the arm mortgages after almost 2 decades of overvaluing, they raise the interest rates of the ARM, and the owners defaulted. So many defaulted that criminal acts were discovered in subsequent investigations, and when it was discovered that the homes were so overvalued, their value plummeted. People suffer injustice every day. Its a very real thing that only brings misery anywhere it goes.

Racial prejudice is another injustice that is NEVER good. So how would one say injustices aren't real? How would one say that it is ever "good" for one to suffer injustice... or that which is not deserved is hurtfully destructive? When is it just and good to be hatefully racially prejudiced? When is it just and good to murder innocent people? When is it good for a man to come home every night drunk to beat his good and faithful wife? She suffers a terrible injustice sometimes for the sake of children who are also innocent.

Those are questions worthy of me asking you, and innocent people suffering terrible injustices cry out to be heard every day.

It really doesn't matter at all if we perceive an injustice. Injustice is in and of itself morally universally and absolutely wrong.. Injustice being a wrongful act perpetrated on an undeserving person.

We both have a burden here however. Mine being to demonstrate that absolute truth exists, and how I can be certain they exist, You have the burden of demonstrating that it does not exist and how you can be certain of it. It would be very hard to prove injustice does not occur.

As for proving God exists, that would take an entirely different thread just to go over the facts of Genesis 1 which I believe are huge evidence of His existence, but this will be another debate.

I know you will address my points and questions above and I thank you... I only have one more. Do you believe injustices occur?

I'm not going to be here for a while, but I will be back tomorrow.

Peace out and good luck to you.
Once again thank you
Find all posts by this user
02-11-2014, 12:00 AM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
challenge Accepted. This is a debate between Michael_tadlock and Wolfbitn only. All other posts will be removed or deleted.



But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
02-11-2014, 12:05 AM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
(01-11-2014 11:33 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  To further and simply define my usage of universal absolute truth, I mean something that is true, transcending human approval or opinion. It remains true regardless of the point in time, or the location in space. It remains true even if entire societies believe and act otherwise. As far as I'm concerned this is as solid and dependable as the concept of basic Mathematics.

You need to define your terms here. Judging but what you wrote below, I think what interests you are objective moral truths, which means you are trying to make an objective moral argument. As I tried to explain in my previous post, the basics of mathematics are axiomatically true, which is very different from the kind of truth claims you are trying to make.

Quote:I think for a good alternate example of universal truth, although it doesn't carry the impact, might be injustice. Injustice may seem like a vague thing, but it would entail many possible injustices. We could say it is NEVER GOOD and ALWAYS WRONG to be unjust toward another person. Unjust implies that the person wronged did not deserve what was inflicted, no matter the culture, and regardless of popular opinion.

I know you could question specific cases of injustice, but my view holds that we KNOW injustices have existed pretty much throughout recorded history. Many times today, in the street, in the churches, in our politics, injustices occur whether we know about them or not... we DO know they occur and some become notable, some may never be known. I believe youd be very hard pressed to say, believe, and then go on to PROVE, that injustices do not exist. People are robbed and plundered, home owners are plundered by con men in suits losing everything, peaceful nations are plundered by other nations. People have choices, and people can fight back in one way or another, but it is STILL ALWAYS wrong when one is treated unjustly.. not deserving of the act perpetrated on them.

When the housing bubble exploded... what happened? Banksters and those being paid to give estimates of a home's worth, collaborated to overvalue the homes for almost 2 decades. People bought these over valued homes for years... but the only easy loans were the ARM's. When the owners would sell again, the home would once again be overvalued... and when it was sold again it was overvalued again... THEN the bankers raised the rate on the arm mortgages after almost 2 decades of overvaluing, they raise the interest rates of the ARM, and the owners defaulted. So many defaulted that criminal acts were discovered in subsequent investigations, and when it was discovered that the homes were so overvalued, their value plummeted. People suffer injustice every day. Its a very real thing that only brings misery anywhere it goes.

Racial prejudice is another injustice that is NEVER good. So how would one say injustices aren't real? How would one say that it is ever "good" for one to suffer injustice... or that which is not deserved is hurtfully destructive? When is it just and good to be hatefully racially prejudiced? When is it just and good to murder innocent people? When is it good for a man to come home every night drunk to beat his good and faithful wife? She suffers a terrible injustice sometimes for the sake of children who are also innocent.

Those are questions worthy of me asking you, and innocent people suffering terrible injustices cry out to be heard every day.

It really doesn't matter at all if we perceive an injustice. Injustice is in and of itself morally universally and absolutely wrong.. Injustice being a wrongful act perpetrated on an undeserving person.

I never said injustice does not exist.

Quote:We both have a burden here however. Mine being to demonstrate that absolute truth exists, and how I can be certain they exist, You have the burden of demonstrating that it does not exist and how you can be certain of it. It would be very hard to prove injustice does not occur.

That is the opposite of how truth claims are evaluated. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the absolute truth exists, being the negative of the argument. You are making the truth claims, you have to justify them. If I tell you that I am holding a baseball, and you ask me to prove it, it would be logically incorrect, as well as rather absurd, to challenge you to prove to me that I am not holding a baseball. In this example I am making the claim, I have to give you a reason to believe me or care that my claim is true.

Quote:As for proving God exists, that would take an entirely different thread just to go over the facts of Genesis 1 which I believe are huge evidence of His existence, but this will be another debate.

I know you will address my points and questions above and I thank you... I only have one more. Do you believe injustices occur?

I'm not going to be here for a while, but I will be back tomorrow.

Peace out and good luck to you.
Once again thank you

Fair enough, but if at some point down the line your justification for objective morality leads back to god, I am going to ask you how you know that. If scripture is your answer, than you can expect me to attack scripture. We will get there I am sure.

I have debated theist before on objective morality. In the hopes that I won't have to repeat myself, I am going to link it here.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ker?page=2

I posed a question to Jeremy in that thread asking him how come Muslims practicing shariah law feel that is it morally permissible to kill adultery while in most of the west it is generally understood that killing adultery is immoral. If morally it objective, what is the source of objective moral truths, and how come there appears to be so much disagreements between peoples on moral questions?
Find all posts by this user
02-11-2014, 01:35 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2014 01:39 AM by Wolfbitn.)
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
(02-11-2014 12:05 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 11:33 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  To further and simply define my usage of universal absolute truth, I mean something that is true, transcending human approval or opinion. It remains true regardless of the point in time, or the location in space. It remains true even if entire societies believe and act otherwise. As far as I'm concerned this is as solid and dependable as the concept of basic Mathematics.

You need to define your terms here. Judging but what you wrote below, I think what interests you are objective moral truths, which means you are trying to make an objective moral argument. As I tried to explain in my previous post, the basics of mathematics are axiomatically true, which is very different from the kind of truth claims you are trying to make.

Michael... hello again, and thanks for responding so quickly. I had a bit more time than I realized, and saw you posted quickly, so I'm here.

Youre correct... in this discussion I am referring to injustice as a universal and absolute moral wrong, calling "injustice" a "bad moral", but we can also refer to it as simply a bad "thing" in general... but yes I do believe we can rightfully call "injustice" a "bad moral". In other words, It is NEVER good and ALWAYS wrong, to treat someone unjustly.

So I hope your question of whether I'm speaking of a moral truth is considered answered... Yes I am.

Quote:I never said injustice does not exist.

Good... that's a point in the topic then that we can consider out of the way. We both recognize the existence of injustice yes? The definition and examples provided then too I take it are accepted as valid?

Quote:We both have a burden here however. Mine being to demonstrate that absolute truth exists, and how I can be certain they exist, You have the burden of demonstrating that it does not exist and how you can be certain of it. It would be very hard to prove injustice does not occur.

Quote:That is the opposite of how truth claims are evaluated. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the absolute truth exists, being the negative of the argument. You are making the truth claims, you have to justify them. If I tell you that I am holding a baseball, and you ask me to prove it, it would be logically incorrect, as well as rather absurd, to challenge you to prove to me that I am not holding a baseball. In this example I am making the claim, I have to give you a reason to believe me or care that my claim is true.

Well it seems to me that to prove absolute truth doesn't exist would be the only way to counter the many points that show it does. It is the existence of absolute truth we are seeking... does it exist? If this statement is TRUE, and it is always wrong to treat someone unjustly, we have a universal and absolute truth whether we like it or not. Smile Not saying YOU wouldn't like it to be true. I believe the examples though, in my first post here, are fair examples of an injustice being perpetrated. I believe therefore that injustice exists because we know it is often perpetrated, and we know there are real victims.

As for the origin of Absolute moral truth, we must first determine whether or not it exists. I suppose there are several possibilities. You mentioned "God". We both have a good idea of my definition, but what is YOUR definition of God? What do you consider to be the "qualities" a real God would have to possess to be considered to BE God? Do you believe it is possible for consciousness to develop among us because consciousness existed before us and was passed down to mankind?

Ok... I believe Iv answered your points. I'm just a bit confused as to where you actually stand on the issue at this point though, so please let me ask a few questions... just for clarification, so I can see exactly where you stand on the issue.

1) Since you acknowledge the existence of injustice and you agree with me that it exists, do you agree with me that injustice is "never good", using my definitions of injustice from my first post?

2) If you disagree with me, and you instead believe that injustice is sometimes GOOD.. could you please offer me 3 examples of when you consider injustice to be a "Good" thing?

3) What is your definition of "God"?

4) What would you say is the origin of "consciousness"?

5) Do you believe that everything which exists, existed within the theoretical singularity? "Consciousness" specifically.

Thank you again Michael
Peace out.

Thank you
Find all posts by this user
02-11-2014, 01:49 AM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
(02-11-2014 12:00 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  challenge Accepted. This is a debate between Michael_tadlock and Wolfbitn only. All other posts will be removed or deleted.


Heya momsurroundedbyboys lol... great nic, good to meet you, and thank you Smile
Find all posts by this user
04-11-2014, 11:47 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
(02-11-2014 01:35 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 12:05 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You need to define your terms here. Judging but what you wrote below, I think what interests you are objective moral truths, which means you are trying to make an objective moral argument. As I tried to explain in my previous post, the basics of mathematics are axiomatically true, which is very different from the kind of truth claims you are trying to make.

Michael... hello again, and thanks for responding so quickly. I had a bit more time than I realized, and saw you posted quickly, so I'm here.

Youre correct... in this discussion I am referring to injustice as a universal and absolute moral wrong, calling "injustice" a "bad moral", but we can also refer to it as simply a bad "thing" in general... but yes I do believe we can rightfully call "injustice" a "bad moral". In other words, It is NEVER good and ALWAYS wrong, to treat someone unjustly.

So I hope your question of whether I'm speaking of a moral truth is considered answered... Yes I am.

Quote:I never said injustice does not exist.

Good... that's a point in the topic then that we can consider out of the way. We both recognize the existence of injustice yes? The definition and examples provided then too I take it are accepted as valid?

Quote:We both have a burden here however. Mine being to demonstrate that absolute truth exists, and how I can be certain they exist, You have the burden of demonstrating that it does not exist and how you can be certain of it. It would be very hard to prove injustice does not occur.

Quote:That is the opposite of how truth claims are evaluated. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the absolute truth exists, being the negative of the argument. You are making the truth claims, you have to justify them. If I tell you that I am holding a baseball, and you ask me to prove it, it would be logically incorrect, as well as rather absurd, to challenge you to prove to me that I am not holding a baseball. In this example I am making the claim, I have to give you a reason to believe me or care that my claim is true.

Well it seems to me that to prove absolute truth doesn't exist would be the only way to counter the many points that show it does. It is the existence of absolute truth we are seeking... does it exist? If this statement is TRUE, and it is always wrong to treat someone unjustly, we have a universal and absolute truth whether we like it or not. Smile Not saying YOU wouldn't like it to be true. I believe the examples though, in my first post here, are fair examples of an injustice being perpetrated. I believe therefore that injustice exists because we know it is often perpetrated, and we know there are real victims.

As for the origin of Absolute moral truth, we must first determine whether or not it exists. I suppose there are several possibilities. You mentioned "God". We both have a good idea of my definition, but what is YOUR definition of God? What do you consider to be the "qualities" a real God would have to possess to be considered to BE God? Do you believe it is possible for consciousness to develop among us because consciousness existed before us and was passed down to mankind?

Ok... I believe Iv answered your points. I'm just a bit confused as to where you actually stand on the issue at this point though, so please let me ask a few questions... just for clarification, so I can see exactly where you stand on the issue.

1) Since you acknowledge the existence of injustice and you agree with me that it exists, do you agree with me that injustice is "never good", using my definitions of injustice from my first post?

2) If you disagree with me, and you instead believe that injustice is sometimes GOOD.. could you please offer me 3 examples of when you consider injustice to be a "Good" thing?

3) What is your definition of "God"?

4) What would you say is the origin of "consciousness"?

5) Do you believe that everything which exists, existed within the theoretical singularity? "Consciousness" specifically.

Thank you again Michael
Peace out.

Thank you

Forgive me for not responding sooner, but I am have been busy with other things.

When you say that "injustice is always wrong" you are making a very broad statement. Injustice is bad because it is defined as bad. Your question of when injustice is not wrong would be like asking when is sunny is not bright. It doesn't make sense. Where you are going to find disagreement is on what constitutes injustice. This will vary widely based on culture and the individual beliefs of the person. Speaking in general though, humans do have a general common understanding of what right and wrong is, and we do agree on a lot across both time and culture. Let me explain why this, by itself, is not proof of objective morality.

In order for something to be objective it has to be the same irregardless of the individual. By contrast if the definition or meaning of something is subject to interpretation (that is "subjective") it cannot be objective. Now in reality everything is truly subjective, but for many things it is neither useful nor practical to consider things that way. If I say that the earth is not round but flat I am for all intent and purposes objectively wrong. How I think or feel about the shape of the earth has no bearing on the actual shape of the earth. You can prove the earth is round, objectively, but taking a picture of it from space, measuring its diameter, or otherwise demonstrating it. If you want to prove that morality is objective you are going to be held to a similar standard of evidence.

To hastily define it, morality is how we feel about actions or conduct that other humans engage in. When we say something is wrong we mean it offends us in some way; usually by undermining the good of the community (ex. polluting) or the rights of individuals (ex assault). Morality is not the same for everyone, everywhere, all the time - which is what one would expect if it were objective.

Now as I said before most people, from most places, in most times in history, have a strong agreement on many points of morality. In general we are all against theft and killing within our own tribe, for example. However, just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it objective. Let me give you an example - If I say chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream we all understand that this is my opinion, and that it is not an objective fact that chocolate is better than vanilla. If I were in a room with thirty other people and they all agreed chocolate was better it would still subjective, because opinions about ice cream are always going to be relative to the individual. If everyone in the world agreed that chocolate ice cream was better we would have universal subjective agreement, but we would not have objective proof, that one flavor is better than the other flavor. Similarly, even if everyone agreed on a particular set of moral participles that only proves there is strong agreement on those principles, it does not prove that morality is objective.

Let me be clear about what my position is in this debate; I am not taking the position that objective morality absolutely does not exist, I am taking the position that there is no proof that truly objective moral principles exist. As the affirmative, it is your job to convince me, through compelling arguments and evidence, that objective morality must exist, where all I have to do is show that your arguments are insufficient in demonstrating proof.

To answer your questions:

1) I think it is unjust that gay couples are denied the same legal rights to marriage as straight couples, and I believe that gays have the right to marriage even if the majority in a country or state do not want them to have the right to marriage. I am pretty certain there are many people who do not agree that this constitutes injustice.

2) Injustice means "not just". Your question doesn't make sense. It is like asking "when is bitter sweet?". I think, upon further inspection, you will find there are many examples where one person might call an action injustice and another would call it just.

3) I don't believe in god. If god is going to be important in this debate, I am much more interested in your definition of god.

4) Clinically consciousness means only being awake and lucid. There is every indication that consciousness is the product of neural activity in our brains.

5) I am not sure what you are trying to say. My initial reaction is "no".
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
05-11-2014, 01:20 AM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Michael,

Thanks very much for answering... Smile

To say truth cannot be universal and absolute is to open the door for a number of very ugly scenarios. Even today we can look around us and we see people do horiffic things that they are perfectly fine with and feel no remorse for whatsoever.

You imply we cannot define some injustices as universally and absolutely wrong. I disagree WHOLE heartedly.

For instance... do you believe it is NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin?

1) If you say you agree and it's NEVER good, then you believe in a universal moral truth.

2) IF you disagree and say it is sometimes GOOD to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin, you should not be walking in society.

So which do you believe?

I frankly believe... and I'm very glad to be able to say, that it is ALWAYS wrong and NEVER good to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin.

Then we come to the questions and your answers, and I have to say you left them partially unanswered and kinda talked around them Wink


Quote:1) Since you acknowledge the existence of injustice and you agree with me that it exists, do you agree with me that injustice is "never good", using my definitions of injustice from my first post?

Michael Wrote:1) I think it is unjust that gay couples are denied the same legal rights to marriage as straight couples, and I believe that gays have the right to marriage even if the majority in a country or state do not want them to have the right to marriage. I am pretty certain there are many people who do not agree that this constitutes injustice.

^^^That doesnt tell me whether you believe injustice is "never good" or not.... but I will bypass that in favor for your explanation in the first half of your post.

You DONT believe injustice is ALWAYS wrong, IF I have your inderstaanding right.


Quote: 2) If you disagree with me, and you instead believe that injustice is sometimes GOOD.. could you please offer me 3 examples of when you consider injustice to be a "Good" thing?


Michael Wrote:2) Injustice means "not just". Your question doesn't make sense. It is like asking "when is bitter sweet?". I think, upon further inspection, you will find there are many examples where one person might call an action injustice and another would call it just.


The question was easy... WHEN is it GOOD to do undue and unjust harm to an innocent person? I would like 3 examples please.

Quote:3) What is your definition of "God"?

Quote:3) I don't believe in god. If god is going to be important in this debate, I am much more interested in your definition of god.


This is another one you didnt answer... I KNOW you dont believe in a god... I am ASKING YOU what qualities do you assume a God would have to have in order to BE God? I would like an answer to that please. DEFINE God.



Quote:4) What would you say is the origin of "consciousness"?

Michael Wrote:4) Clinically consciousness means only being awake and lucid. There is every indication that consciousness is the product of neural activity in our brains.

And AGAIN, i know the definition of consciousness. I am asking you how it came to be? What is it's ultimate origin?



Quote: 5) Do you believe that everything which exists, existed within the theoretical singularity? "Consciousness" specifically.


Michael Wrote:5) I am not sure what you are trying to say. My initial reaction is "no".

If all matter and energy in our universe resulted from the Big Bang, how can conscious be hande down to us, if it didnt exist within the singularity?

If someone aske you for 10 dollars and you only have 5, you need to get 5 more from somewhere else to give that 10 bucks. You CANNOT give what you dont have in hand to give. If consciousness did not exist in some form within the singularity, or even outside it, where did it come from? Do you say consciousness did NOT exist before life on earth?


Ok... let me summarize my quesitons to you.


1) Do you believe it is NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin? Yes or no?

2) If you do believe it is SOMETIMES GOOD... give me 3 examples of it being a GOOD thing to beat someone to death for the color of their skin.

3) Give me your definition of God... What are the qualities a God would need?

4) What do you think is the "ultimate origin" of "consciousness"?

5) When is it GOOD to beat an innocent child to death? Or is it NEVER good despite social acceptance?


Thanks Michael
Peace
Find all posts by this user
05-11-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
(05-11-2014 01:20 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Michael,

Thanks very much for answering... Smile

To say truth cannot be universal and absolute is to open the door for a number of very ugly scenarios. Even today we can look around us and we see people do horiffic things that they are perfectly fine with and feel no remorse for whatsoever.

I am not interested in a discussion about what you would like to believe.

Quote:You imply we cannot define some injustices as universally and absolutely wrong. I disagree WHOLE heartedly.

For instance... do you believe it is NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin?

1) If you say you agree and it's NEVER good, then you believe in a universal moral truth.

2) IF you disagree and say it is sometimes GOOD to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin, you should not be walking in society.

So which do you believe?

I believe that it is never good to victimize anyone. Just because you and I agree doesn't make morality objective.

Quote:I frankly believe... and I'm very glad to be able to say, that it is ALWAYS wrong and NEVER good to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin.

Then we come to the questions and your answers, and I have to say you left them partially unanswered and kinda talked around them Wink


Quote:1) Since you acknowledge the existence of injustice and you agree with me that it exists, do you agree with me that injustice is "never good", using my definitions of injustice from my first post?

Michael Wrote:1) I think it is unjust that gay couples are denied the same legal rights to marriage as straight couples, and I believe that gays have the right to marriage even if the majority in a country or state do not want them to have the right to marriage. I am pretty certain there are many people who do not agree that this constitutes injustice.

^^^That doesnt tell me whether you believe injustice is "never good" or not.... but I will bypass that in favor for your explanation in the first half of your post.

You DONT believe injustice is ALWAYS wrong, IF I have your inderstaanding right.


Quote: 2) If you disagree with me, and you instead believe that injustice is sometimes GOOD.. could you please offer me 3 examples of when you consider injustice to be a "Good" thing?


Michael Wrote:2) Injustice means "not just". Your question doesn't make sense. It is like asking "when is bitter sweet?". I think, upon further inspection, you will find there are many examples where one person might call an action injustice and another would call it just.


The question was easy... WHEN is it GOOD to do undue and unjust harm to an innocent person? I would like 3 examples please.

Quote:3) What is your definition of "God"?

Quote:3) I don't believe in god. If god is going to be important in this debate, I am much more interested in your definition of god.


This is another one you didnt answer... I KNOW you dont believe in a god... I am ASKING YOU what qualities do you assume a God would have to have in order to BE God? I would like an answer to that please. DEFINE God.



Quote:4) What would you say is the origin of "consciousness"?

Michael Wrote:4) Clinically consciousness means only being awake and lucid. There is every indication that consciousness is the product of neural activity in our brains.

And AGAIN, i know the definition of consciousness. I am asking you how it came to be? What is it's ultimate origin?



Quote: 5) Do you believe that everything which exists, existed within the theoretical singularity? "Consciousness" specifically.


Michael Wrote:5) I am not sure what you are trying to say. My initial reaction is "no".

If all matter and energy in our universe resulted from the Big Bang, how can conscious be hande down to us, if it didnt exist within the singularity?

If someone aske you for 10 dollars and you only have 5, you need to get 5 more from somewhere else to give that 10 bucks. You CANNOT give what you dont have in hand to give. If consciousness did not exist in some form within the singularity, or even outside it, where did it come from? Do you say consciousness did NOT exist before life on earth?


Ok... let me summarize my quesitons to you.


1) Do you believe it is NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin? Yes or no?

2) If you do believe it is SOMETIMES GOOD... give me 3 examples of it being a GOOD thing to beat someone to death for the color of their skin.

3) Give me your definition of God... What are the qualities a God would need?

4) What do you think is the "ultimate origin" of "consciousness"?

5) When is it GOOD to beat an innocent child to death? Or is it NEVER good despite social acceptance?


Thanks Michael
Peace

1) For the most part yes, I agree
2) A fruitless although not impossible exercise. I decline.
3) So far god has not been important to this debate, and the definitions of gods are less so important to me. If you want to talk about god it would be pertinent for you to describe which god.
4) What do you mean by ultimate origin? What do you mean by consciousness?
5) Good and bad are subjective qualities. People do kill children, they do so for reasons that are compelling to them. According to my personal understanding of morality I deem that "wrong", according to whatever standards they are using and the motivations that compel them it isn't wrong, or at least not wrong enough to stop them. You seem to be confusing agreement with objectivity. However strongly you feel about crimes against children, or discrimination based on race, does not effect the nature of morality. If you are going to make a case for an objective moral framework you need to demonstrate at a minimum one example that is objective. I don't really know how you would go about doing that, but you claim it is so it is your job to demonstrate it.

Independent of your, or my, or anyone else personal views, how is morality objective? Can you describe morality with using qualitative measures, such as "right", "wrong", "undesirable", ect? If you cannot, if it is not possible to describe a moral framework without using subjective qualities, then it is very likely that morality is is not objective.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: