I knew you were going to do this. I tried to stop it up front but apparently there is no stopping it. Our perception of moral quality is NOT the issue. The issue is foundations. We may not agree but if God exists one of us is objectively wrong. I may claim Pluto is a hot desert and you may claim it is a cold glacier. One of us is wrong. What grounds morality has not one single thing to do with our all perceiving it the same. This was not a point at all. It was 100% assumption and no evidence and is wrong anyway.
Uh huh. So you're admitting that God is useless so far as conveying moral truth to humanity. There's no way for us to reliably know God's Moral Opinions, but you are just more comfortable believing that a moral-possessing God actually exists out there. You feel better theoretically.
OK. That's a good start.
So here's my counter: AmbigGuy is the Final Judge of all morality. It is a power which was given to me at birth, in the same way as the Dalai Lama gets his authority. When I die, the Knowledge Of Moral Truth will leave my body and settle into a child somewhere in the western hemisphere. This child will make himself known, as I have made myself known.
So with all of this in mind, it seems that your God is unnecessary for moral grounding. Yes?
Of course, the added benefit of AmbigGuy-as-Moral-Authority is that I am here, in person, and ready to answer any moral question quite directly. I am not an absentee moral agent, like your God. With me, it is actually possible for humans to get answers to their specific moral questions.
By the way, if we can't get moral truth from God, how do you know that homosexuality is immoral?
I don't get it. Is a passive recognition of things that can be read in texts from centuries gone by invalid because it does not agree with you? What exactly are you objecting to.
Oh boy. Can be read. So you commit the same crime even as you ask, "What crime!"
You know I love you, 1robin, but I fear that an in-depth explanation of the passive voice... well, I'm pretty sure it will pass well over your head. But what the heck. Maybe we have readers who would be interested in it.
The passive voice is a grammatical construction which is often used in debate to hide the actor -- to make it seem that one's position is shared by all and every person on the planet. Here's an example:
Active Voice: A handful of dumb*** Christians worship C.S.Lewis as a great thinker.
Passive Voice:
C.S.Lewis is worshipped as a great thinker (by a handful of dumb*** Christians).
See how the actor is removed? The parenthetical stuff is usually omitted altogether. Hear how the passive voice comes across as a grand, arm's-length observation of Lewis' greatness?
(If anyone would like me to post the transformation equation for converting active to passive, let me know. It's a little tedious.)
So I think we can see why a Christian debater might prefer the passive voice over the active voice when discussing attitudes toward C.S. Lewis. Usually the debater doesn't even realize he's doing it.
In this immediate instance, you have asserted: "Morality derives it's nature from two things. Supposed objective moral truth and subjective moral intuitions. This has been known for a long time."
It has been known. That certainly sounds better than saying, "Two retarded monks and an elderly baboon have known for a long time that...."
Anyway, I could do this all day, but we should probably move on.
....and morality does not change if God exists.
Who told you that? Who told you that God never changes His moral laws for mankind?
Any God worth His salt would be at least as smart as I am, and I am smart enough to change the moral law to suit the culture. Otherwise the cultures would likely go extinct. In a hard society where the average female died at 26, for example, I'd decree it a moral truth that sex could begin at age 14 rather than at age 22. In a softer culture, where female independence is important, I might announce that females must wait until 25 years old.
See? If I'm smart enough to change the moral law, why do you think that God doesn't change the moral law? Who taught you that assumption?
If God exists objective moral facts exist. Of he does not morality is an illusion.
I already disproved this one, above. Objective moral facts can exist in my head as easily as in God's.
I can name three moral facts that are true if God exists. Absolute wrong exists, absolute right exists, and we are all accountable.
That's a fine opinion, I guess. But I was thinking you could give me an actual moral fact, like "Murder is wrong" or somesuch.
Nevermind, I guess.
I thought you were going to debate. I thought I made it clear I did not want to get stuck in your usual assertions, assumptions, and logic defying declarations. This worse that the black knight in the Holy grail who's arm got chopped off but when told it was kept saying "no it isn't". Declarations (especially ones this bad) are not arguments.
Oh, mercy. The mouse rears on his hind legs and squeaks fiercely at the lion. Mercy!
I asked you to only post this thread if you were going to make meaningful claims. You have apparently given up already and are just talking smack.
Sure, man. All my claims are smack. But all your claims are gospel truth. I think everyone knows your standard position on your debate prowess.
I have defined murder but there is no need in this case.
So I was right. You have no idea how to define 'murder' in your own words.
I knew that. I just wanted the lurkers see your refusal. You claim that God disapproves of murder but you have no idea what 'murder' means. And so it goes with your moral thought. As groundless as any I've ever encountered. You don't even know how to show that the most egregious sin (murder) is wrong.
I am debating with a person who does not acknowledge logic. There is no common ground.
Did you ever take those standardized tests when you were young? I did. For the army, or because someone wanted me to teach, or for other reasons. It turns out I'm a genius. Yeah, no kidding. On the 'logical reasoning' parts of the tests and the language parts, I'd finish up quicker than a cheap floosie and go for a half-dozen smokes while the rest of the test-takers were still slogging through the midsection. And I always got the highest score. It was really too easy for me.
Don't hate me. I was mostly just born this way.
Anyway, how about you? Have you ever been tested for your logical reasoning ability? We could settle this whole who's-got-the-logic question simply by comparing test scores!
Well this has gone about the way I thought. I do not see how this can be productive. I have no idea what your even doing or why you think it worth it. I will give you one last post to be effective and make scholarly arguments. If not I am done. One last time.
You really are a hoot. And I mean that sincerely. It would be a duller world without you.
To claim moral truth exists I must have three things.
1. I must have a foundation greater than human opinion.
2. I must have a transcendent standard.
3. I must have a source for that standard.
Sure. No wonder the concept of moral truth confuses so many people. To believe in it, a person has to convolute his thought by making up stuff like your three items. Better to maintain one's rationality and see morality as just based in human empathy.
But let's cut to the chase. I have one important question for you:
If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?