Shadowy Man

It's a simple question. Yes or no.

Keith

Websters defines "objective" this way:

"Of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking."

We all know that God is real because every fact of the universe directly or indirectly points to him. Without God, nothing can make sense or be explained. You have already proven this to be true.

In fact, still, you have provided no objective standard by which you can say that murder is a moral wrong. If you can't know objective Truth, you have a huge and fatal problem with your empty, meaningless worldview. Look at what you're doing...you can explain and defend NOTHING that's objectively true about anything, and yet you demand that I explain EVERYTHING and defend it. This I have successfully and cheerfully done.

Your worldview is empty, meaningless, indefensible, and incoherent. It has just been objectively ripped to shreds. If you disagree with my asscessment, then you must start to make sense. Begin by telling me how you can objectively know that murder is a moral wrong, and then we'll proceed from there.

Keith

Keith

Question answered....atheism objectively nuked, with rubble still smoking.

Keith

Keith

Then you have some explaining to do. Let's start with this...is murder objectively a moral wrong, and if so, how do you know?

Keith

Shadowy Man

So, you are not open to discussion. You just want to come to this board and spout your beliefs without feeling obligated in any way to answer any direct, simple question sent your way. That's not really in the spirit of the discussion board at all. I don't really know why you refuse to answer such a simple question. Does it somehow intimidate you?

Keith

It has nothing to do with being intimidated. It has nothing to do my own subjective feelings. I'm open to discussing matters that relate to my moral beliefs, and yours. I'm open to discussing whatever relates to our respective worldviews. I don't understand (and you have offered no explanation) why, for purposes of this discussion, you would need to know if I eat shellfish. Is your question relevant to this topic? If so, why?

Keith

ReasonableDoubt

Keith:

"If I do something knowing or believing it to be wrong, it is a sin for me to do it. If I do something "wrong" without knowing it is wrong then it isn't sin. The morality of a deed isn't based solely on our knowledge, nor is it based soley upon our act. Both the act and our moral understanding of it together determine the moral rightness/wrongness of the deed. In every instance we are held to the same moral duty--to do what we understand is the right thing to do, and to refrain from doing what we understand to be the wrong thing. "

If this isn't subjective- I don't know what is! To do what we understand is the right thing to do - doesn't that vary from person to person, culture to culture, era to era? I bet a lot of slaveholders did not think slavery was wrong. Was it or not? It doesn't seem that you can give any more of an objective answer than the atheists here under your standard.

Keith

Yes, human understanding of moral "right" and "wrong" does vary in some respects. As far as I know, the bible doesn't clearly tell us that slavery is morally wrong. But it doesn't logically follow that everything God hasn't declared "wrong" is therefore "right."

If you demand that God must provide an exhaustive list of moral do's and don't's (assuming that this is possible) why would you make such a demand? Are you denying that God has given you a moral conscience? Do you regard the rules to be more important than the reason for the rules?

Keith

ReasonableDoubt

All I'm saying is that when you say if someone doesn't know something is wrong, it isn't, and if they do know it is wrong, it is- that is a rejection of absolute truth- which is what I thought you were advocating.

The law doesn't take into account whether someone knows that an action is illegal. In fact, ignorance of the law is no excuse - that's a maxim I was taught in Criminal Law in law school.

If you're proposing that God provides morality - you have to say whether an action is wrong or not according to God. The same action cannot be wrong for one person and right for another based on that person's knowledge of morality.

It would seem that under your theory the easiest way to "get away" with what you want to do is to be as ignorant as possible, and claim you didn't know that an action was wrong.

Keith

No, I'm not rejecting absolute Truth, I'm elevating it. The law can't be more ultimate than the reason for the law, which is God's will. God has instilled his moral law into all of us.

If I opened a letter belonging to my neighbor (not realizing that it isn't mine--it was accidentally delivered to my address), would my act be morally wrong? I say no. God will not view it as morally wrong, but I'm morally wrong if I don't bring the letter to my neighbor and explain what happened.

Human legal standards are necessarily different. But that is to be expected because moral and legal are not the same thing. If I need to clarify any of this, just let me know.

Keith