We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

Lets use your form of argument. what is meant by protecting?

Google definition.

Protect: keep safe from harm or injury

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Doesn't matter. What is good? Has only one true answer via logic. you keep speaking as though mathematics is the basis of logic.

No. You've brought mathematics into this when you said that there is only "ONE" truth. "Truth" is not quantifiable and neither is morality.

Why can't you give me an example of something that is either empirically good or bad? Because no such thing exists.

a reply to: windword

I have shown you that logically you cannot have two contradictory statements being true. You are being irrational bro. Your denying the laws of logic which makes rational discourse useless...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have shown you that logically you cannot have two contradictory statements being true.

You haven't proven empirical/objective "good and bad exists". Asserting something as a fact, such as "There is only one truth" doesn't make that a fact, any more than asserting that there's only one god.

You're just playing meaningless games and haven't proven your point that 1) I have religious faith in anything, or that, 2)empirical morality is a reality anywhere in the universe.

You are the one with cognitive dissidence, because you refuse to accept others can and do believe differently than you.

I've asked you like 5 time now, Give me one example of something that is empirically good or bad, to everyone and everything, everywhere in the universe. You should be able to do that without having to run around in semantic circles, trying to trick people into your logic. Until you can provide just one example, I'm going to assume that you can't because it doesn't exist.

a reply to: windword

You haven't proven empirical/objective "good and bad exists". Asserting something as a fact, such as "There is only one truth" doesn't make that a fact, any more than asserting that there's only one god.

There is the problem
Empirical -adjective: empirical

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Objective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Objective and Empirical are not the same thing in ethics. Objective means there is a moral truth outside of personal opinions. I used the laws of logic to show you there is a moral truth outside of personal opinions, hence a moral truth. Again if you want to deny the law of noncontradiction ok go right ahead but it makes your world view irrational? why because rational is defined as:

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Did you decide to give up the point about murder always being evil?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Objective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Fine. There is no such thing as "Objective Morality"!

All morality is based on the feelings and/or opinions of the observers, the recipients and the doers of an event and the actions leading up to that event. One event, 3 proverbial perspectives.

I have given you several examples of how something considered "good" to one person could be considered "bad" to another. Please offer empirical evidence of the contrary. If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to find, as all of nature would resonate and be in harmony with this one empirical and objective moral standard and truth, from the bottom to the top.

a reply to: TheArrow

Not unless you have conceded that logic dictates for any moral claim only one moral truth, regardless of which one is true. Lets say the definition of murder changes. This argument still stands. Whatever your definition of murder the fact remains their is only one moral truth.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

Not unless you have conceded...

I make no concession.

So, I say it again, under your amended definition of murder, Hitler didn't commit murder.

Do you agree with that?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Now before I begin I am going to start by defining faith, as the culture today has started to redefine faith as belief without proof.

faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something

You are already incorrect in your assumption or purposefully misleading. "Today's Culture" isn't Redefining the word faith. The fact is that they are using the word "Faith" with the definition including "without proof" because that is the correct definition especially when used in the context of Religious Faith.

When talking about Theological ideas and Religious Concepts it is used purposefully to include "without proof" because one's "Faith" is of a personal nature and not something objective that others may also share collectively. Two people may adhere to the same "Faith" and hold similar ideals and thoughts about their "Faith" and yet each of them still only have their own personal subjective "faith" individually.

That's the point after all. My "Faith" regardless of how much I believe it to be true is still mine alone. It's not something that is provable or that has some objective existence in reality that I can use to prove it to someone else. That's the meaning of the word.

a reply to: windword

All morality is based on the feelings and/or opinions of the observers, the recipients and the doers of an event and the actions leading up to that event. One event, 3 proverbial perspectives.

If the feelings and/or opinions of the observers contradict which one is true?

If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to find, as all of nature would resonate and be in harmony with this one empirical and objective moral standard and truth, from the bottom to the top.

You keep saying this, and I don't follow your reasoning...how do you come to this conclusion?

a reply to: windword

All morality is based on the feelings and/or opinions of the observers, the recipients and the doers of an event and the actions leading up to that event. One event, 3 proverbial perspectives.

If the feelings and/or opinions of the observers contradict which one is true?

If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to find, as all of nature would resonate and be in harmony with this one empirical and objective moral standard and truth, from the bottom to the top.

You keep saying this, and I don't follow your reasoning...how do you come to this conclusion?

I actually agree with what Arrow was saying on page 7; words & ideas can be represented in different ways & subjectively interpreted. I actually hate all the examples having to deal with promotions/homework/long term conditioned ideas relating to society as we know it. Society as we know it is twisted & forces people to make choices, which can be interpreted as good or bad by others. The existence of language itself is a semantic. & examples from the bible on morality is a pointless argument because it has been translated & rewritten so many times. This is about faith, not God. A god that "murders" be it with floods or decrees cannot be proven to exist & it's supposed actions & their moral implications are irrelevant.

Perhaps the definition of the word morality is intrinsically subjective, making our argument moot.

Maybe WW is right, there is no objective morality because we can know nothing except subjective viewpoints. My argument for objective morality has been "evil is evil." You can subjectively apply good on evil actions, but the fact that we can define something as good or evil proves to me there is an inherent sense of morality in humans, which implies an objective sense of right & wrong.

Are we born with a natural tendency toward good? It's impossible to know at this stage of humanity.

a reply to: TheArrow

I make no concession. So, I say it again, under your amended definition of murder, Hitler didn't commit murder. Do you agree with that?

Nope. As my moral experience isn't based of a word's definition, but the experience I have when witnessing or hearing of an act. Hitler was evil. Again pick any definition of murder you like my point about logic still stands.

a reply to: mOjOm

You are already incorrect in your assumption or purposefully misleading. "Today's Culture" isn't Redefining the word faith. The fact is that they are using the word "Faith" with the definition including "without proof" because that is the correct definition especially when used in the context of Religious Faith

Their are two definitions of Faith. One has nothing to do with lacking evidence. It has to do with trust. I have faith in jesus Christ. Means I trust Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean, "I believe in Jesus Christ without evidence." At least when I say it. The definition applied to a statement is determined by the speaker not the audience. The moment you change the definition from that of the intended definition you lose all insight into what the person was saying.

When talking about Theological ideas and Religious Concepts it is used purposefully to include "without proof" because one's "Faith" is of a personal nature and not something objective that others may also share collectively

Again you are using without proof or evidence. I don't hold complete trust in someone or something without good evidence because that would be foolish. I love my mother, and she loves me. If she gives me food or sleeps in the same house as me, I am not worried about it being poisoned or here coming and slitting my throat in my sleep. Thats based on faith(Trust). Why do I trust my mom? Because she loves me. Why do I believe love exist? because God is love. Why do I believe God exist? Because Jesus Christ was a historical person. Why do I believe Jesus Christ was a historical person?Over a dozen and half 1st century sources. Why does him being a real historical person matter when their are obviously myths attached to him? Rejecting miracles in history is a philosophical bias, and the Gospels are written in Historical Narrative and Historical Fiction didn't exist as a literary style back then. Therefore either the miracles happened or the writers were bonkers or on really strong hallucinogenics . How do we check? Internal consistency. Now before anyone tries to attack the consistency of the Gospels. Remember that each of the Gospels is written from a different persons perspective. You get different perspectives in the Gospels just as in the example below:

You and I walk out of two neighboring stores. We hear tires screech and a girl scream then their is a collision. The officer who happened to be around the corner ask for witnesses. You and I come forward. He ask us for our statements. You say, "I walked out of the store and I heard tires screech then there was a collision." I say "I walked out of the store and I heard a girl scream then there was a collision." Neither of us have told untruthful accounts, but they differ in perspective.

Okay, but that still not enough where do we go after internal consistency? Manuscript evidence. The Gospels out way any ancient document in comparison. While some first century sources, such as Tiberius Caesar, have contemporary sources they are not always considered the most valuable, as in the case with Tiberius Caesar.

So what about after that. Archaeological evidence. I'll just give one that NT critics got upset about not to long back as they insisted Nazareth never existed:

Dr James Strange notes that “when Jerusalem fell in AD 70, priests were no longer needed in the temple because it had been destroyed, so they were sent to various other locations, even up into Galilee. Archaeologists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty-four ‘courses’, or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth.”

My main point is that I have rationalized my trust in Christ through research and study of the data at hand. It is very offensive to me for someone to say that you cannot reasonably put your trust in Christ. In order to make that statement you would have to know everything I know and you do not have the same mind as me so I take it we probably differ in knowledge as well.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow


Nope. As my moral experience isn't based of a word's definition, but the experience I have when witnessing or hearing of an act. Hitler was evil. Again pick any definition of murder you like my point about logic still stands.

No it doesn't, because this all came about because you took exception to my original definition of murder, which is unlawful homicide.

You are arguing about laws, not the act of killing. You don't understand that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Great response BTW. Very thorough. I'm starring you for that one.

I wasn't talking about You using the word Faith to mean "without proof". I was just pointing out that you said that Society was redefining the word Faith by using it that way. Really they are just using it with that specific definition.

Personally, I've always seen "Faith" as being different than "Belief" because of that property of "no evidence" or "no proof". Otherwise I don't see the difference at all and they might as well be the same word. But that's just me.

Anyway, that's about it. Just pointing out that anyone who uses "Faith" with the "without evidence" definition isn't doing anything wrong at all or changing anything. In fact they are using it correctly as far as the Definition is written in most dictionaries.

Again, nice answer on that reply.