Okay, but "immanuel can" thinks, or believes, it is right.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 12:45 pmI think I am right. IC's argument is that a thing is morally right or wrong according to which God says it is, and its rightness or wrongness is given to it by virtue of that alone.
Until either of you provide a sound and valid reason/argument for what you both think, or believe, is right here, do you think 'we' are better of deciding which one of you is right, or just remain observing only?
I have not seen "immanuel can" argue that 'morally right or wrong' depends on 'which God says it is', and I do not think that "immanuel can" would even think this, let alone say this, considering the fact that "immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that there is only One God.
Also, could it be a possibility that the Rightness, or Wrongness, 'morally', was, and still is, given by God, Itself?
Or, is this an, absolute, impossibility, from your perspective and view of things here?
Now, could it be a possibility that when, and if, who and what the term and word 'God' means, and has been referring to, references the very Thing from which 'objectivity' is found, and/or comes from, exactly?
Or, is this not a possibility, to you?
I have never seen the 'morality' word defined, previously, as being 'our sense of ...'. But, considering the fact that 'morality' is only conceived in 'our' sense, if the word 'our', here, is meaning what I think you are referring to, the words 'our sense' work here.
But what if 'the subjectivity', which you have just placed in 'its definition' here, can be 'objectively sensed'?
Or, is this not a possibility, to you?
But, "immanuel can" is, absolutely, in no position at all to speak about, nor for, 'the authority of God's word'. "immanuel can is, still, under a complete delusion that God is male-gendered and that 'a male thing' created the whole Universe, Itself. So, "immanuel can", clearly, is not in any position at all to speak of, or about, 'God's actual words'. "immanuel can" has absolutely no 'authority' at all here.
'Generally accepted' 'to who', and/or 'by who', exactly?
Did you not just do, more or less, the exact same thing when you defined the 'morality' word with and by the words, 'our sense ...', which could be inferred as 'morality' is 'subjective' to 'our senses'?
But, surely you have been right, enough times, in your life, to know when you are 100% sure of some things, correct?
Could you have thought, or believed, that you were 'right' previously, too many times in your life, before you actually obtained and gained the actual clarity or clarification of what was 'actually right' and so learned, maybe 'the hard way', about things in Life?
Also, if you are not 100% sure that you are right about some thing here, then why are you trying to argue for 'that thing'?
Very, Very True.
And, until you posters here even begin to agree upon and accept what you, each, mean when you use the 'objective' word, you could, if you lived long enough, be arguing and disagreeing about this same issue for another millennia, or two. Exactly like you adult human beings have been doing, hitherto, when this is being written.
So, what is 'it', exactly, that you are trying to argue against here?
When one starts with, God is a male-gendered creature, which created the whole Universe, and made up what is 'morally right and wrong', and 'objectively', then, obviously, and very clearly, what 'that one' means is, absolute, pure nonsense.
But, what is, actually and irrefutably, 'objectively morally Right and Wrong, in Life', is something that can be uncovered, comprehended, understood, and known. And, as you pointed out what the term or phrase, 'objective moral truth', actually means has to be discussed, agreed with, and understood, first.