What about these notions are “beyond empirical proof”?
And how does this build towards an idea of “moral absolutes”?
Please explain…thanks.
Your analogy with “Bigfoot” is a non sequitor. Bigfoot if such an animal does exist is a physical entity. Scientific observation and testing would be tools used for that type of investigation. Notions pertaining to God, moral absolutes, the soul, an afterlife, etc., are of a different sort than that of claims regarding Bigfoot, Lochness Monster, etc.
Don’t put moral absolutes in that bucket.
I’ve already explained how you test those analytically.
You could do the same for the soul.
Afterlife and God? Not so much.
So atheists are omniscient? So if atheist says there are no absolutes that’s it, end of debate. Well that does seem contradictory though, that there are no absolutes but know that absolutely?
I don’t view morality as black and white or as set of commands per say. It’s not necessarily cut and dry. Kill in self defense, someone lying about harboring a Jewish person in their home during the Holocost. There’s other examples as well. My views on morality were very influenced by the philosophy of existentialism. That’s why I presented the examples of Ted Bundy and Mother Theresa. What I’m hearing from some is that preferring one over the other is not much different from preferring juice over soda.
Then what if I say bigfoot is a metaphysical entity that only presents itself in the perception of the observer? You cant disprove it…
I’m not sure I follow what you mean hear?
Um, no. I didnt say there are no absolutes in this world. I said there is no absolute morality, which yes, is a claim about the absolute “lacking” of an absolute morality. You’re playing silly word games
Big foot only reveals himself subjectively to the observers, in a way that makes them believe he exists outside of their perception, in the world “out there”. This framework means you cant disprove this empirically, by definition. So, do you believe it to be true? That big foot absolutely exists?
Huh? …
Misquoted in other post sorry
What I meant was, do “absolute” entities exist irrespective of an individual’s worldview?
Basically, what does “absolute” mean?
You claimed an absolute morality… or moral absolutes.
Please describe it.
99% of the difference between Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy was circumstance and context.
So?
Again I would use the Bigfoot example as an anology. A better one would be the notion of the Devil or angles. Anything involving metaphysical notions is in philosophical realm and hence beyond scientific proof.
I am framing bigfoot as a metaphysical entity. I am claiming that Bigfoot reveals himself to observers via their subjective perception. Since I am making that claim, that BigFoot is actually a revelation via subjective consciousness (cant ge observed empirically), do you believe BigFoot is then real? Just because I make the claim? The reason I’m using big foot is to break the habit of thought regarding the underlying logic. Replace bigfoot with “moral” or “god” and it’s the same argument. You simply assert that it exists as an absolute because you experience it. But maybe BigFoot visits me at night as a ghostly figure that only I can see? Do you believe me?
So neither had a choice? I’m curious how do you the actions of Ted Bundy or others who like him?
Some get their smarts from an oozing slime, and some inherited their smarts from Jesus, it’s real easy to see who is who. Now just pay attention and be patient and you will see too.
I mean, yes, ok - non physical things cant be proven via empirical observation, by definition. So, it begs the question - WHY should I believe anything I dont experience and cant verify it? Do you believe my Ghost friend Fredrick is real?
Let me guess, you reject evolution and abiogenesis and will soon bust out the 747 junkyard argument. Maybe mention irreducible complexity or a watch
1 Like
I think your missing a word there…how do you xxxxx
