Peter Holmes wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:30 am
No, you've offered one piece of evidence for moral objectivism: your claim that you have a personal relationship with a god. And that's not evidence for anything, as far as I'm concerned, let alone evidence for moral objectivism, which has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of any agent.
That's exactly what I said...it's an example of something that, no matter how good it might be, will not be conveyable to another person, and you would not personally have reason to accept.
So since I'm right about that, obviously, why the note of irritation? So far as our conversation goes, wasn't my only evidence, just a single case of sound but inadmissible
evidence. I rested nothing at all upon it.
So what can I offer? I need at least an option, if I'm to offer anything. But if there are literally no things which you would consider evidence, what can I say?
By all means keep up this pretence of reasonably aggrieved perplexity - and keep trying to put the burden on me by pretending that you've shown me every kind of evidence there could possibly be, and that I've turned them all down.
You'll have to show me where I said any such thing, because you'll see I most certainly did not. I'm not aggrieved in any way: I'm just pointing out that the effect of unfocused skepticism is to gratuitously preclude all evidence.
Skepticism, to be serviceable, needs to have criteria. Even in a court of law, there is evidence that will be accepted ("hard" evidence) and evidence that will not (hearsay, for example). No court begins on the premise that no evidence can even be imagined that would be acceptable
-- and if it did, what would the prosecutor or defence attorney be expected to do?
What does "evidence" look like to you?