That is the only honest part of the argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Moral argument my version - proof for God.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Only if objectivity wasn't mentioned.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So the majority have the same morality?
firedragon
Veteran Member
In all aspects or some?
Why can't torturing babies for all eternity be made moral in a hypothetical universe?
Some aspects. There are many overlaps in moral structures.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A man might as well state I know God exists as a man.
Then contradicts self in science no man is God as earth heavens evolved naturally in space by emptiness and pressure cold voiding.
God held is no God in other words as spatial pressure and emptiness highest God owned form. God therefore does not exist. Highest form created God held mass.
I know morality spiritually by my owned man self presence. A human. I am the highest conscious spiritual being why I infer God by sexual connotation owned only in bio form.
I then exhibit that behaviour by overlording the human female as a self superior expression of man human. As highest spiritual presence.
Then contradicts self in science no man is God as earth heavens evolved naturally in space by emptiness and pressure cold voiding.
God held is no God in other words as spatial pressure and emptiness highest God owned form. God therefore does not exist. Highest form created God held mass.
I know morality spiritually by my owned man self presence. A human. I am the highest conscious spiritual being why I infer God by sexual connotation owned only in bio form.
I then exhibit that behaviour by overlording the human female as a self superior expression of man human. As highest spiritual presence.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What are these "overlaps in moral structures" in "some"?
And what are the moral structures that dont overlap in "others"?
What I mean to say is that moral structures that some people employ might consider an act moral while others with a different one, wouldn't. This is where it doesn't overlap.
for ex. X says lying is immoral. Y agrees. This is overlap. Z disagrees. This is not an overlap.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I gave you an example. Specifics are too diverse to all be covered.
Can we get to the point? What are you suggesting?
firedragon
Veteran Member
I am actually not suggesting anything at the moment because your epistemology is not clear.
I understand that specifics could be vastly diverse. But could you give a few?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If a man who is a human doubles his thought is a man today by adult form a man. Three self concepts.
Stating no other advice except your thought who is the man self in the past?
Deceased man actually.
Does your conscious self say I came back from the dead first?
Nothingness. No human body. No human consciousness just self today.
As thinking as a human is what is incorrect in human life.
So if I said before you claim logic is correct illogical claim wipes out logic as an anti status in consciousness then you would only own death.....
As a man human wouldn't you!
Stating no other advice except your thought who is the man self in the past?
Deceased man actually.
Does your conscious self say I came back from the dead first?
Nothingness. No human body. No human consciousness just self today.
As thinking as a human is what is incorrect in human life.
So if I said before you claim logic is correct illogical claim wipes out logic as an anti status in consciousness then you would only own death.....
As a man human wouldn't you!
Okay I'll try to explain it.
Everyone has their own moral structure, where they classify acts as moral or immoral. It's not perfect, it's not even complete. In fact it changes all the time (in my experience). And most of the time closely aligned with the laws around them and their upbringing. Also basic evolutionary traits like empathy and compassion influence their morality.
Another example would be, whether homosexuality is moral. Some would agree, others disagree, others simply put it outside the moral sphere of good to bad.
Or murder, in some cases. These are the specifics without complete overlap. Outliers are always present.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
When his man men agree in science claiming life owns a dark side yet speak plainly about burning lights removal gains darkness by science or space life as space not existing with anything as human concepts.....
Then make those comments for machines and reactions the concept I am thinking darkly is all theirs.
As they don't want it personally they pretend no you other human self must own it first as I don't.
So we allowed evil humans to think darkly first which caused human behaviour by radiation chemical caused changes.
Yet they too own first choice. As a choice to murder. For a murderer murdering twenty four hours a day would be a murderer. Quantified by an evil thinker who caused it and named it. No human owned that status first. Science did.
So when humans support humans in science to think darkly they support their own destruction.
Simple basic conscious human observation of supporting evil thinking. All stated by humans as humans.
Then make those comments for machines and reactions the concept I am thinking darkly is all theirs.
As they don't want it personally they pretend no you other human self must own it first as I don't.
So we allowed evil humans to think darkly first which caused human behaviour by radiation chemical caused changes.
Yet they too own first choice. As a choice to murder. For a murderer murdering twenty four hours a day would be a murderer. Quantified by an evil thinker who caused it and named it. No human owned that status first. Science did.
So when humans support humans in science to think darkly they support their own destruction.
Simple basic conscious human observation of supporting evil thinking. All stated by humans as humans.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Nope.
The majority merely have the most overlap.
firedragon
Veteran Member
How come the majority have the most overlap and the others dont?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Alright. So murder is a moral absolute that overlaps. Am I correct? The murderers don't have this morality? How come some people don't get this evolutionary trait that as you said come from an evolutionary trait like empathy and compassion? Is it an anomaly or a process in evolution by itself?
Heyo
Veteran Member
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Even if I accepted all the rest of the points (which I don't, they're riddled with assumptions), the conclusion (11) is a non sequitur. You haven't anywhere justified that any being has to be able see "ultimate morality" if it exists, let alone that if there is one, it must be unique in that ability and be identified as 'god'.