The Best Evidence of a Creator is Also a Blow to Traditional Religion

[joe1776]

Okay, a part of it is John Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness". There is more, but that one is necessary but not sufficient. So what do you say?

I agree with Rawls' theory. However, let me quickly note that the OP explains the moral judgments of individuals (how they're made -- descriptive not prescriptive). The Rawls theory moves us into the morality concerned with societies and the way they should be.

 

[Left Coast]

If you can't discern the difference between an opinion and an action, I can't help you.

Huh? You said:

"You are confusing moral opinions with the judgments of conscience. People who think gay sex is immoral hold a moral opinion. That's not their conscience guiding them."

That's what I was replying to. Are you arguing that a "judgment of conscience" is an "action"? It seems to me that both "judgments of conscience" and "moral opinions" are opinions.

No, their conscience does no misinform them. Gay sex acts disgust some people and they confuse the feeling of disgust with the feeling of wrongness produced by conscience. Social scientists have studied disgust and its impact on moral judgments.

Again, you just seem to be redefining counterfactuals to fit your hypothesis. Disgust is quite often tied to feelings or perceptions of harm. Rotten food disgusts us, for example, as that's evolutionarily advantageous for us. There is no reason to believe that people who believe gay sex is immoral are not acting on the basis of their conscience. Their conscience is misguided, no doubt, but that's not an indication they're not employing it.

I observed my own reactions to moral situations. You can do it too.

My observations of human psychology and behavior are precisely the reason I find your hypothesis so odd.

What math? All my comment requires is the reasonable deduction that people are more likely to cooperate in a worthy cause than in an unworthy cause because, as I wrote earlier, the good side in human nature is stronger than the bad.

You're aware that the phrase "more likely" is a mathematical expression, yes?

Yes, the statement I made was specific to the Nazi question. You took a cheap shot in converting that to an absolute position.

My intent wasn't to take a cheap shot at all, I'm sorry if you perceived it that way. My perception here is that you make broad, sweeping statements, and then when called on them, you walk them back.

You are really straining to find fault with what I write. Laws are almost always prohibitive. The only reason the USA doesn't have a national law banning abortion is that its proponents couldn't get it passed. So, they have to settle for laws in some states.

I assure you, I'm not straining. Your understanding of abortion reflects virtually no nuance, when abortion (whether we're talking about the ethics of the act itself, or legislation that regulates it) is an extremely complicated and vexed issue that has divided people for a very long time - precisely because it's complex and requires us to balance conflicting moral values. Almost no abortion laws in the US are universally prohibitive. Abortion has been considered a Constitutionally protected right by the Supreme Court for 50 years.

Abortion in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Laws on abortion aren't individual acts of abortion.

Abortion is not merely a legal issue. "The abortion issue" is larger than laws about abortion.

I see abortion and every other kind of act as a very simple moral issue. Take all the facts of an actual case and let conscience be your ONLY guide. Everything else is nonsense.

Again, this is the kind of sweeping, absolutist statement that gets you into trouble.

"Taking all the facts of an actual case" requires reason.

That's fine as far as you've taken it. Now, is your position that the final judgment in a typical, specific moral situation is a task done by the rational mind (reason) or by unconscious intuition (conscience)?

I think it's quite often a combination. We may have unconscious intuitions about moral situations, but our final judgment about them is often determined by both that and the conscious moral reasoning which we apply. Sometimes our conscious moral reasoning aligns with our intuition, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[joe1776]

...Are you arguing that a "judgment of conscience" is an "action"? It seems to me that both "judgments of conscience" and "moral opinions" are opinions.

I'm not arguing that and... if the judgments of conscience were referred to as mere opinions that would be a poor choice of words since they emerge from the only moral authority we humans have.

Our moral opinions are produced by our reasoning minds. Conscience is sometimes a factor but there are many other influences such as one's personality.

Again, you just seem to be redefining counterfactuals to fit your hypothesis. Disgust is quite often tied to feelings or perceptions of harm. Rotten food disgusts us, for example, as that's evolutionarily advantageous for us. There is no reason to believe that people who believe gay sex is immoral are not acting on the basis of their conscience. Their conscience is misguided, no doubt, but that's not an indication they're not employing it.

There is ample research to support my position. I just quickly Googled disgust and gay sex and found this.

In heterosexual men, pictures of rotting flesh, maggots and spoiled food induce the same physiological stress response as pictures of two men kissing each other. That is the surprising finding that was recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Psychology & Sexuality.

My intent wasn't to take a cheap shot at all, I'm sorry if you perceived it that way. My perception here is that you make broad, sweeping statements, and then when called on them, you walk them back.

You're imagining things. I'll bet you can't quote a single "broad sweeping statement" that I've had to "walk back." Try it.

Again, this is the kind of sweeping, absolutist statement that gets you into trouble.

What trouble? I see the abortion issue simply. It gives me no trouble whatsoever: 1) Discover all the facts of the specific case of abortion; 2) Let conscience judge whether it was immoral or justified. 3) Repeat as necessary with other cases.

All the complex crap you've described is based on the premise that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. Tell me why I should recognize and deal with the delirious confusion caused by the false premise that conscience is the product of reason.

....Sometimes our conscious moral reasoning aligns with our intuition, sometimes it doesn't.

That's true. And when it happens it's a mistake. I covered that possibility in the OP:

Due to Reason Worship, our reasoning minds want to learn about morality from conscience and then make moral rules. When our moral rule doesn't conflict with the guidance of conscience, it does no harm. It's simply unnecessary. When our moral rule conflicts with conscience, it becomes a potential bias capable of misleading those who follow it. Since they can only be unnecessary at their best, and biases at their worst, moral rules should be abandoned.

 

[Ponder This]

The babies were able to discern good behavior from bad. They wanted to reward the good and punish the bad. There's more than empathy demonstrated in this research.

One child even hit one of the puppets! Was that really morally justified? Or emotionally triggered?
Children failed to react to experiments until faces were drawn on the objects!
It seems clear that babies reacted according to their ability to empathize.

There is a strong case that empathy is necessary for morality. So saying that babies can empathize doesn't mean they don't have moral detection capability.
Perhaps, the study could have explored further by conducting experiments in which different emotions were displayed in reaction to the same behaviors to test if children are reacting to perceived emotional distress or the morality of specific behaviors.

What role, if any, do you think empathy plays in our ability to make moral decisions? Is empathy something else entirely? How does it relate to your concept of conscience?

Also, notice that there is something very important missing from the experiments: How do the people conducting the experiments decide that the actions they are portraying to children are moral or immoral? The people conducting the experiments have already decided that certain actions of the puppets are moral or immoral. If no one else noticed this conundrum, then how sly is that? Anyone who agrees that the experiments portray genuine moral or immoral behavior practically has to accept that they were able to recognize the morality of those behaviors intuitively without having to think about it.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not arguing that...

Then what in the world are you arguing?

You said:
"You are confusing moral opinions with the judgments of conscience."

I replied, "This is a distinction without a difference, IMO."

Then you said, "If you can't discern the difference between an opinion and an action, I can't help you."

So then to clarify I asked, "Are you arguing that a "judgment of conscience" is an "action"?

And now you're saying that's not what you're arguing? If so, then what is the distinction between a judgment of conscience and a moral opinion? If it's not the difference between and action and an opinion, then why in the heck bring that up?

This is illustrative of the fact that I don't think you've actually thought through your argument(s) here.

and... if the judgments of conscience were referred to as mere opinions that would be a poor choice of words since they emerge from the only moral authority we humans have.

The fact that they are all we have doesn't make them any less opinions.

There is ample research to support my position. I just quickly Googled disgust and gay sex and found this...

I'm not disputing that opposition to homosexuality is often rooted in disgust. That actually supports my position. Disgust is evolutionarily helpful because it's tied to things that can harm us. Rotting food can seriously harm or even kill us. This indicates that disgust-based opposition to homosexuality is rooted in some perception of its harmfulness. Earlier, you opined that conscience operates on the basis of what is painful (harmful) or pleasurable (helpful). Thus, all this taken together indicates that people who are morally opposed to homosexuality out of a sense of disgust have employed their conscience. Their conscience, in this case, is simply misguided.

What trouble? I see the abortion issue simply. It gives me no trouble whatsoever: 1) Discover all the facts of the specific case of abortion; 2) Let conscience judge whether it was immoral or justified. 3) Repeat as necessary with other cases.

All the complex crap you've described is based on the premise that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. Tell me why I should recognize and deal with the delirious confusion caused by the false premise that conscience is the product of reason.

Because step 1) in your process requires reason, by necessity. To even comprehend the concepts in the facts a case, and their relationships to each other, is a function of reasoning. It just occurs so quickly and naturally (because we do it all day every day) that we often don't even recognize we're doing it.

Due to Reason Worship, our reasoning minds want to learn about morality from conscience and then make moral rules. When our moral rule doesn't conflict with the guidance of conscience, it does no harm.

Incorrect. The moral rules of white supremacists don't conflict with their consciences, and they do harm.

It's simply unnecessary. When our moral rule conflicts with conscience, it becomes a potential bias capable of misleading those who follow it.

As our consciences (as in the above example with those opposed to homosexuality) can also be a potential bias. We need to be vigilant against bias whether it is conscious or unconscious.

 

[joe1776]

One child even hit one of the puppets! Was that really morally justified? Or emotionally triggered?
Children failed to react to experiments until faces were drawn on the objects!
It seems clear that babies reacted according to their ability to empathize.

There is a strong case that empathy is necessary for morality. So saying that babies can empathize doesn't mean they don't have moral detection capability.
Perhaps, the study could have explored further by conducting experiments in which different emotions were displayed in reaction to the same behaviors to test if children are reacting to perceived emotional distress or the morality of specific behaviors.

What role, if any, do you think empathy plays in our ability to make moral decisions? Is empathy something else entirely? How does it relate to your concept of conscience?

Also, notice that there is something very important missing from the experiments: How do the people conducting the experiments decide that the actions they are portraying to children are moral or immoral? The people conducting the experiments have already decided that certain actions of the puppets are moral or immoral. If no one else noticed this conundrum, then how sly is that? Anyone who agrees that the experiments portray genuine moral or immoral behavior practically has to accept that they were able to recognize the morality of those behaviors intuitively without having to think about it.

I regret to say that I'm not going to be able to comment with firm conviction on your questions regarding empathy. My interest in morality began long ago, well before social scientists got interested. I reasoned my way to the conclusions offered in the OP which focus on describing how we humans make moral judgments.

The research on babies interested me only because they tend to confirm my suspicion that we are born with a conscience. We do not learn to discern right from wrong from experience.

My guess is that empathy has nothing to do with the judgments of conscience (discerning right from wrong) but everything to do with whether or not we choose to do the right thing and follow the guidance of our conscience. Obviously, strong empathy = better character.

 

[joe1776]

You said:
"You are confusing moral opinions with the judgments of conscience."

I replied, "This is a distinction without a difference, IMO."

Then you said, "If you can't discern the difference between an opinion and an action, I can't help you."

I'll stick with this position since adding anything more seems to only add to your confusion. Conscience judges actions. It might be one of the many factors contributing to moral opinions.

...This indicates that disgust-based opposition to homosexuality is rooted in some perception of its harmfulness...

Stretching disgust into harm is a nice try but it won't hold up. Conscience requires that the harm be intentionally done to an innocent victim. There's no victim in consensual sex.

Because step 1) in your process requires reason, by necessity. To even comprehend the concepts in the facts a case, and their relationships to each other, is a function of reasoning. It just occurs so quickly and naturally (because we do it all day every day) that we often don't even recognize we're doing it.

I've said multiple times that reason is involved in answering the questions of fact. How many times must I write it?

Incorrect. The moral rules of white supremacists don't conflict with their consciences, and they do harm.

Really? How do you know the rules they make? And, how do you know that their rules don't conflict with their conscience?

My guess is that they're just a bunch of arrogant dicks who just don't give a damn who they hurt.

 

[Left Coast]

Stretching disgust into harm is a nice try but it won't hold up. Conscience requires that the harm be intentionally done to an innocent victim. There's no victim in consensual sex.

How did you figure out what conscience "requires"? Again, you seem to be just redefining terms to fit your idea whenever counterfactuals are presented. How is disgust not tied to harm? Why do you think we feel disgust when we see, smell, or taste rotten food? It's a survival instinct. Thus when people feel disgust regarding things that aren't actually harmful, it's a case of that impulse misfiring. You're calling that impulse, as applied to moral situations, conscience. Thus, they are employing their conscience, but incorrectly.

I've said multiple times that reason is involved in answering the questions of fact. How many times must I write it?

You're contradicting yourself and don't seem to be aware of it. If you're admitting we need to reason to arrive at moral judgments, then your belief that our moral judgments should be built on intuition rather than reasoning is incoherent. Reasoning is baked into the cake of intuition.

Really? How do you know the rules theu make? And, how do you know that their rules don't conflict with their conscience?

Same way I know what rules anyone makes and whether they conflict with their conscience. Ask them.

My guess is that they're just a bunch of arrogant dicks who just don't give a damn who they hurt.

Then I think you fundamentally misunderstand the psychology that underlies their beliefs. Asserting that every white supremacist or slaveowner was/is a psychopath just won't hold water.

 

[joe1776]

How did you figure out what conscience "requires"?

Since legislators used their consciences to write criminal laws. We can use criminal laws to extract the requirements of conscience. For example, if Bob injures someone in a car accident, he's not charged with a crime. But if Jack intentionally runs down his mother-in-law with a car, he is charged with a criminal act. From that we can deduce that one of the requirements of conscience is that the actor's intent must be to cause harm.

How is disgust not tied to harm?

Disgust connects to harm but not to conscience --t he intentional harm caused to an innocent victim.

You're contradicting yourself and don't seem to be aware of it. If you're admitting we need to reason to arrive at moral judgments, then your belief that our moral judgments should be built on intuition rather than reasoning is incoherent. Reasoning is baked into the cake of intuition.

Reasoning is baked into the cake of intuition? I have no idea what that means.

In my thinking, reason only supplies the facts for intuition to judge. There's no baking going on.

 

[Left Coast]

Since legislators used their consciences to write criminal laws. We can use criminal laws to extract the requirements of conscience.

But we've already covered the fact that you don't agree with all criminal laws that have been written, such as those that outlaw abortion. So clearly, according to your reasoning, legislators can't have used their consciences to write all criminal laws. So how did you figure out which laws they used their consciences for, and which they didn't?

If your answer is that the ones that only punish intentional harm were informed by conscience, you've just engaged in circular reasoning.

Disgust connects to harm but not to conscience --t he intentional harm caused to an innocent victim.

But you haven't demonstrated that's what conscience is. You're just defining it that way ad hoc in response to my counterfactual.

You've basically constructed an unfalsifiable hypothesis here. Anything that fits, proves your point. Anything that doesn't fit, is explained away as inapplicable.

Reasoning is baked into the cake of intuition? I have no idea what that means.

In means you have to reason in order to intuit.

In my thinking, reason only supplies the facts for intuition to judge. There's no baking going on.

The supplying of facts via reason is moral reasoning. Your brain has to select which facts are morally relevant and which aren't, in order to judge a situation. Thus reason is necessary for the operation of the conscience.

 

[rational experiences]

Science does comparisons, always did. You own a form a thinking that a natural and spiritual human would not think as and not even consider the questions and answers that come about in your psyche and conscious thoughts.

Why you are wrong. A natural spiritual and truthful human would not be doing or involved in an intelligence reasoning done by the status science for the intent of trying to emulate it for all of machine inventions.

Stephen Hawking who Biblically by Creator male human themed status, his invention MATHS as based on the original science model itself. A vision of research of the mountain tip ^ sitting above the water of a flooded Earth totally removed and flat lined to the water mass as science laws, relativity and the invention thinking to design by thinking MATHS.

So today in modern day human history the thinker who owned his own o DNA bio life cell replacement quoted by his owned probability scientist, sacrificed human life, science mind and psyche and awareness, DNA self life destruction as his owned evidence for End of life by machination.

Every conversation today is about science in a science psyche talking science as and for and on behalf of science, relative to machination......as if he believes he will swap places with it by trying to encode or build or interact that machine of various forms with our compared bio life existence, as if your every intent is to finally remove our life form from owning anything naturally itself.

As the machine in modern time a collider and plus all of your computer AI and robots and life being modelled into a robotic form are factually being applied, I would question if your intent was to try to turn the collider into a fake body of who you in science always quoted was the CREATOR O God the Earth.

By core relativity, by studying intricacies of every chemical bio reactive thought or bodily function in the sciences, inferring it to a human began life with a UFO mass, and then try to put us into that machine body, as if you thought our spirit before our existence could be resourced.

Which for a healer, a spiritual self a psyche, an aware human would mean, the UFO knowingly took all of our Earth gases and water mass to cool itself and sucked it into its body. So science already knows that the Sun machine stole those gases from Earth and God O the story/theme, comparison.

But no human is there in any of that use of information about our alienation, or our robotic themed you began as a human in a body form of the machination, metals....which is where the reflective thinking and then design has occurred in reality.

Because science truly believes it. So in the intricate studies and then interactive mind contact and coercive chemical brain programming that is a transmitted study, you are in fact trying to put the amount of metallic robotic mass that a robot to UFO mass owns to claim a human life began with a UFO into and through our body forms and finish us off as the Destroyer.

Actually, in reality, the truth of you, the history that taught science is a Satanist, all of the relative self advice and self warnings about science, due to science as a different form of thinking trying to understand basic innocence, a non science self, reading the Bible and claiming and meek will inherit the Earth. Wanting the Earth to be forcibly changed to his machine theory......total disappearance to open a spatial channel.

So he achieve a part of that condition......and it is not natural. For his machine never did own the original of anything. His machine is not the place that origin began it is the place where he ended everything.

Best evidence of a Creator is the body O stone planet Earth that he personally as a male in a group mentality called a cult named as GOD, where he withdrew and forcibly converted that mass of stone to release and manipulate energy for his machines, who he claims in science is his parent.

 

[joe1776]

But we've already covered the fact that you don't agree with all criminal laws that have been written, such as those that outlaw abortion. So clearly, according to your reasoning, legislators can't have used their consciences to write all criminal laws. So how did you figure out which laws they used their consciences for, and which they didn't?

The "requirements" that I've mentioned form a pattern. When laws don't fit the pattern, my bet is that someday they will be repealed. For example, unlike most criminal laws, there is no innocent victim in most cases of prostitution. So, I expect the current movement to decriminalize the transaction will eventually sweep the world.

The laws that offend the consciences of most citizens get repealed over time. In time, the laws prohibiting abortion will be repealed just as the laws making homosexuality a crime are being repealed.

But you haven't demonstrated that's what conscience is. You're just defining it that way ad hoc in response to my counterfactual.

You don't know what I mean by the word "conscience?" OK here's a definition from Dictionary dot com: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:

You've basically constructed an unfalsifiable hypothesis here. Anything that fits, proves your point. Anything that doesn't fit, is explained away as inapplicable.

1) That's your impression only because you haven't been able to find a flaw in my argument.

2) Popper's term "unfalsifiable hypothesis" applies to science not philosophy. I'm not doing science here. My argument only has to be valid.

The supplying of facts via reason is moral reasoning.

You can label things anyway you like. It's not going to change the fact that moral judgments are intuitive and that the premise that the judgments of conscience are reasoned judgments is false. Reason is involved only in collecting the facts of the case, not the judgment

 

[Left Coast]

The "requirements" that I've mentioned form a pattern. When laws don't fit the pattern, my bet is that someday they will be repealed. For example, unlike most criminal laws, there is no innocent victim in most cases of prostitution. So, I expect the current movement to decriminalize the transaction will eventually sweep the world.

The laws that offend the consciences of most citizens get repealed over time. In time, the laws prohibiting abortion will be repealed just as the laws making homosexuality a crime are being repealed.

Ah okay so they're actually not requirements of conscience. So people's consciences can and do differ. Thank you.

You don't know what I mean by the word "conscience?" OK here's a definition from Dictionary dot com: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:

No no, I'm aware what the dictionary says a conscience is. Note that your particular, idiosyncratic criteria (that a conscience is only in operation when it objects to intentional harm done to an innocent person, and never at any other time) are not there.

1) That's your impression only because you haven't been able to find a flaw in my argument.

I've found multiple already.

2) Popper's term "unfalsifiable hypothesis" applies to science not philosophy. I'm not doing science here. My argument only has to be valid.

Your argument's structure has to be valid and your premises need to be sound. If your premises are unfalsifiable, then how can you ever be confident they're really correct? By what non-scientific method would you ascertain that they are true? "Philosophy" is vague, so please don't say that. I'm looking for your methodology.

You can label things anyway you like. It's not going to change the fact that moral judgments are intuitive and that the premise that the judgments of conscience are reasoned judgments is false. Reason is involved only in collecting the facts of the case, not the judgment

You keep declaring this dogmatically, but it's still as incoherent as when you started. I have to morally reason to know which facts to gather that would be relevant to morally judge a case. Thus, by definition, moral judgments are a product of reason. Ergo, the premise of your OP is false.

 

[joe1776]

Ah okay so they're actually not requirements of conscience. So people's consciences can and do differ. Thank you.

No, as I pointed out in the OP, the mistakes in laws derive from Reason Worship. People use reasoning to make their own moral rules.

No no, I'm aware what the dictionary says a conscience is. Note that your particular, idiosyncratic criteria (that a conscience is only in operation when it objects to intentional harm done to an innocent person, and never at any other time) are not there.

The idiosyncratic criteria to which you refer are commonly called logical deductions.

Your argument's structure has to be valid and your premises need to be sound. If your premises are unfalsifiable, then how can you ever be confident they're really correct? By what non-scientific method would you ascertain that they are true? "Philosophy" is vague, so please don't say that. I'm looking for your methodology.

You're using a term (unfalsifiable) you don't understand. The premises of reasoned arguments can challenged by showing that they are illogical, unsupported by evidence, or both. The charge of being unfalsifiable doesn't apply to the premises of an argument..That term was invented by Popper to determine whether an hypothesis qualified as science.

You keep declaring this dogmatically, but it's still as incoherent as when you started. I have to morally reason to know which facts to gather that would be relevant to morally judge a case. Thus, by definition, moral judgments are a product of reason. Ergo, the premise of your OP is false.

I keep repeating my position on this point because your keep repeating yours. Why don't we assume that there are intelligent readers of our debate and let them decide who's making sense?

 

[Left Coast]

No, as I pointed out in the OP, the mistakes in laws derive from Reason Worship. People use reasoning to make their own moral rules.

Again stated, but not demonstrated.

The idiosyncratic criteria to which you refer are commonly called logical deductions.

Ah, so the criteria by which conscience judges a situation are derived via logic.

Hm...

You're using a term (unfalsifiable) you don't understand. The premises of reasoned arguments can challenged by showing that they are illogical, unsupported by evidence, or both. The charge of being unfalsifiable doesn't apply to the premises of an argument..

You should know of what you speak before you attempt to correct others. An argument can challenged either by showing that its structure is logically invalid, or that its premises are untrue. If a premise is unfalsifiable, that means any possible data could be shown to confirm it (or at least, not contradict it). If any possible data could be shown to confirm it, you have no way to determine whether it is actually accurate or not (as you could simply be fooling yourself). Thus, the accuracy (truth) of the premise is in question.

I keep repeating my position on this point because your keep repeating yours. Why don't we assume that there are intelligent readers of our debate and let them decide who's making sense?

Deal.

 

[joe1776]

You should know of what you speak before you attempt to correct others. An argument can challenged either by showing that its structure is logically invalid, or that its premises are untrue. If a premise is unfalsifiable, that means any possible data could be shown to confirm it (or at least, not contradict it). If any possible data could be shown to confirm it, you have no way to determine whether it is actually accurate or not (as you could simply be fooling yourself). Thus, the accuracy (truth) of the premise is in question.

Karl Popper's invention of the term "falsifiable" determines whether an hypothesis ought to be considered science. Since we're not doing science here, it doesn't apply.

However, let's assume it does. Can you be specific about which of my premises is not falsifiable or are you just tossing out the idea of non-falsifiability over the whole argument?

 

[Left Coast]

Karl Popper's invention of the term "falsifiable" determines whether an hypothesis ought to be considered science. Since we're not doing science here, it doesn't apply.

If we're not doing science, then I have no clue how you're assessing whether evidence supports your premises. That's why I asked for your methodology.

However, let's assume it does. Can you be specific about which of my premises is not falsifiable or are you just tossing out the idea of non-falsifiability over the whole argument?

Your contention that conscience cannot be wrong seems unfalsifiable. What evidence would convince you that's not the case?

 

[joe1776]

If we're not doing science, then I have no clue how you're assessing whether evidence supports your premises. That's why I asked for your methodology.

What are you talking about? We're two posters on a website having a debate. This isn't science and I don't have a methodology. I simply offered an argument in the OP and opened it up for debate.

Your contention that conscience cannot be wrong seems unfalsifiable. What evidence would convince you that's not the case?

Evidence is not required. It's a logical deduction: If I'm right that conscience is humanity's one and only moral authority, then there is no other authority to rely on as a basis for challenging its judgments.

 

[Left Coast]

What are you talking about? We're two posters on a website having a debate. This isn't science and I don't have a methodology. I simply offered an argument in the OP and opened it up for debate.

If you have no methodology for assessing a claim, how in the world do you determine if it's true?

 

[joe1776]

If you have no methodology for assessing a claim, how in the world do you determine if it's true?

I don't call it a methodology but I use logical reasoning to determine the truth or falsity of a claim. Don't you?