Can you prove that there are no moral absolutes? Just because there are explanations doesn’t mean moral absolutes are not real. None of us are infinite and omniscient. At some we all develop a worldview that is outside of any empirical proof.
You’ve done nothing but personally attack people in this thread. Take a look in the mirror
So what does it mean for something to actually exist? Just because something is in our minds doesn’t mean it actually exists. Heck this is much of the argument that those make against the existence of God. Also by acknowledging you can’t or don’t need to prove your views is exactly the point I’ve been making as well. None of us can.
It is the responsibility of the person asserting something exists to demonstrate its existence.
A person’s worldview can be demonstrated to be right or wrong. Or at least elements of it.
Morals have NEVER been expressed outside of human brains and writings. The “you cant prove it doesnt exist” is very weak. You cant prove that the bigfoot isnt alien from a galaxy 2000 light years away either who’s been abducting people.
You’re completely missing the point. The point is that certain things are all in your head. Subjective and do not exist outside of your own thoughts. There is no “proof” needed. Atheists say that God and morality is all in peoples heads. It means it is imaginary or subjective. But when you make a claim about absolutes or the existence of something OUTSIDE of your own subjective beliefs, that’s where proof comes in. Otherwise, fine, let’s all just make up whatever we want, claim whatever we want, because hey it’s in my head you cant disprove it. Tell that to schizophrenics. Just because I feel like my opinion on a good song is absolute and objective doesnt make it so. Just because I have a dream about flying doesnt mean I can fly.
Yes “morals” exist in the most generic way - in the sense that people have them. Just like they have opinions. But there are no objective/absolute “this moral is the correct” that exists outside of your own subjective assertion
I’d say things fall into one of three categories; physical, conceptual and other. “Other” is just to avoid a false dichotomy but I don’t know what is in it.
You seem to be referring to the conceptual. I’d say your mind’s picture of an apple exists as a concept.
1 Like
Right. A dream of being chased by a t rex when someone sleeps exists. But it doesnt mean t Rex’s still exist outside of the persons own brain / subjective experience
Why must you lie?
1 Like
A moral absolute would be something that holds in all contexts.
While you can’t prove the negative you just asked about, we can take…and have taken…just about any moral precept we’ve had as human beings and either created or imagined context where logically said moral “absolute” doesn’t hold.
If there are any moral precepts that have resisted such methodology, I am not currently aware of them.
It’s the truth just look at your posts
In both cases, it reminds me of the picture of a woman and the animated ballet dancer. Some look at the picture of the woman and see an old crone. Others look at it and see a beautiful young woman. Some say the ballet dancer is turning to the right; others say she is turning to the left. When pointed out, some can then see the alternate reality. And some can’t.
In the Religion Forum, the Evidence Only group cannot seem to perceive the second reality, and insist there is no second reality. It doesn’t matter that many, in every age, have been able to identify it. Since they, themselves, cannot perceive it it, then everyone else must be wrong. All this is compounded for them in their literal reading of scripture.
I have a nephew who can only see in black and white. He does not know what color is. To him, the normal is black and white, and he doesn’t really get all the fuss about colors. They simply don’t matter. I see the same kind of reaction from people who cannot perceive God. They don’t get what the fuss is about, and God simply doesn’t matter. The thing is, my nephew does not insist that everyone else live in a black & white world along with him and do without colors. I wish more atheists would take a similar tack.
What believers need to understand is that it is as impossible to present the concept of God to a non-believer as is to present the concept of pink or red or sky-blue to a person who only sees in black and white.
No- this is not what is said. What is said that if there is no evidence of a second reality, or any evidence that a second reality interacts with the reality that we see, there’s no reason to treat it as if it does exist.
Again- completely inaccurate description of what is really being said.
What is being said is people telling stories of deities is in no ways any hard evidence that they have actually “discerned” an actual second reality that actually exists. It MAY exist…but the evidence that has been presented is completely subjective. We already know that just because a preponderance of people may believe something to be do DOES NOT IN FACT MAKE THAT SOMETHING SO.
These distinctions in what is being said are INCREDIBLY important!
Ah! But here we could point out to your nephew that the structures of the eyes that can perceive color are different from his eye structure, AND can provide him with a solid theoretical scientific underpinning of what “color” is that is totally consistent with the rest of the theoretical underpinnings of the reality that he can perceive.
We can do no such thing with “spiritual discernment” (yes there are some differences in brain structure that seem to account for “spiritual experiences”…however these don’t all lead to the “discernment of God”…simply a heightened “spiritual experience” that can manifest in many different ways.
So it isn’t the same thing in the slightest.
All analogies are imperfect…I get that.
But you have a habit of twisting what people actually tell you to make them force-fit into analogies.
You need to start listening to what non-believers actually tell you…not what you think you hear them telling you.
1 Like
You obviously havent been reading our posts as you repeat this same argument over and over. You reject 1000s of “second realities” while asserting your own. Pot meet kettle
This is so true. Instead of directly discussing our ideas, they always get boxed into some silly analogy like baking cakes or something
Because you shall not want…
1 Like
Abstract notions such as good, evil, love, etc., are beyond any type of empirical proof and are understood by each of us in the context of whatever worldview we hold. Regarding aspects of worldviews that can be falsified I would agree to some extent. For example if one claimed that if one prays for it will always rain and it doesn’t I would conclude that is false.
Would not though an “absolute” morality be one which is agnostic of the individual’s worldview?
No one here is insisting on how people live anymore than you, ironically are in your post. We are simply having a discussion and debating ideas and voicing our opinions. And if you dont think there are large segments of Christian’s in this country who insist how others should live, then you are even more biased against atheists then your posts regularly imply.
I’ve experienced intense and profound alternate realities, even out of body experiences. And I’ve never used those to promote ancient mythology or assert the existence of a being that is able to perform magic or defy the laws of physics.
