Kenny wrote:
No; it doesn't make sense to YOU, but we aren't talking about what make sense to you; we are talking about what make sense to ME! again..... why is it so difficult for you to understand that I could ground my morality in what makes sense to me?
Kenny, I seriously doubt you are advocating that a self-defeating view "makes sense."
Fair enough! But for someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of your supreme, transcendent, moral being; your view has no more value than mine; right?
Kenny, everyone has an opinion. What we are talking about is whether one's worldview is grounded. When you use the term 'value' in regards to a moral position, you appear to again smuggle in OM.
Do you know the difference between “morality” and a simple claim about morality?
Of course, do you? Because I've already shown where you smuggle in OM where it suits you. Like so many, you casually dismiss OM, and then seem to think that you yourself are a 'moral' person. Without realizing it, you benefit from the Christian ethic and how it promotes the notion of human value, justice, mercy, etc.
No, but I eventually learned it. According to you not everybody understands objective morality and are left having to interpret it. If it were objective it would be obvious.
All reasonable people grasp the basics of OM. Please show me a society that thinks being stolen from is a good thing. Or one where injustice is considered good. This has already been asked and answered.
No, it assumes if morality were objective, it would be agreed upon by reasonable people. The fact that it isn’t should tell you something
It tells me that you are not a reasonable person.
Did you not define objective morality as a morality that transcends the opinion of humans? What else could you possibly be talking about if you aren’t talking about a God?
Ken, it's not my fault that the basic and obvious conclusion of OM is that is points to a transcendent moral law giver.
On one hand you complain that something should be basic and agreed upon by reasonable people. Yet, God being the reasonable conclusion of OM seems to trouble you. I wonder why?
So you tellin me if intelligent life didn’t exist; good and evil would still exist? Okay then I will ask you the same question I asked someone else; there is no intelligent life on the moon. Does evil exist on the moon?
I approach this from a Thomistic view for the most part. Evil is not a thing, but is a privation. Therefore, your question doesn't really hold. In other words, I'm not going to adopt your presuppositions to defend my own position. Especially since I view your presuppositions as incorrect.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious