What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:53 am

and that nothing much rides on the position you take. He only adopted antirealism as an ineffective strategy to get around some problems with his real concern.... which is the scientific justification of the eradication of Islam.
Why would one need an anti-realism strategy against Islam? Doesn't realism present enough possibilities? Doesn't his whole FSK position actually give Muslims more swing room? Of course he will say that science argues against some of their positions, but against things like theism he invokes some very poor non-scientific arguments.
He's not really somebody known for exerting vast effort in pursuit of goals that make sense. Among his many perverse boasts has been that he
  • Spent years doing nothing but learn Arabic...
  • In order to spend a lot of time making his own translation of the Quran...
  • To put his personal translation of the Quran into an Excel spreasheet
  • To evaluate the individual passges according to several thousand categories of violence and evil.
  • To become a "philosopher" he spent 3 years just reading Kant for 6 hours every day
  • End result of that.... check his post history for the word "syllogism" and see how long it takes to find one he has accurately identified
There is nothing in his behaviour that could justify any expectation that the next thing he says or does will make much sense.




Edit: Lols, I just checked that syllogism thing and it could make a fine drinking game. That boy is as thick as pig shit.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:18 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:53 am

and that nothing much rides on the position you take. He only adopted antirealism as an ineffective strategy to get around some problems with his real concern.... which is the scientific justification of the eradication of Islam.
Why would one need an anti-realism strategy against Islam? Doesn't realism present enough possibilities? Doesn't his whole FSK position actually give Muslims more swing room? Of course he will say that science argues against some of their positions, but against things like theism he invokes some very poor non-scientific arguments.
He's not really somebody known for exerting vast effort in pursuit of goals that make sense. Among his many perverse boasts has been that he
  • Spent years doing nothing but learn Arabic...
  • In order to spend a lot of time making his own translation of the Quran...
  • To put his personal translation of the Quran into an Excel spreasheet
  • To evaluate the individual passges according to several thousand categories of violence and evil.
  • To become a "philosopher" he spent 3 years just reading Kant for 6 hours every day
  • End result of that.... check his post history for the word "syllogism" and see how long it takes to find one he has accurately identified
There is nothing in his behaviour that could justify any expectation that the next thing he says or does will make much sense.




Edit: Lols, I just checked that syllogism thing and it could make a fine drinking game. That boy is as thick as pig shit.
Cut the guy some slack geez.. if we add all those years together, we get that he must be at least 150 by now. I say he's holding up pretty well for his age.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter, first you need to apologize for accusing me that I did not answer your question as if I am a coward running away.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:26 am So your answer is: we didn't and don't create the reality - the 'reality-in-general' - that we describe in different ways. So you are, at least, a methodological realist. Congratulations, and welcome back to reality.
Nope I am not a methodological realist but rather in this case I am not a God who created reality.
But then you also say we co-create the reality with which we're 'entangled'. Questions:

1 Is that co-created reality different from the reality that we didn't and don't create? And how are they related? (This is patent, contradictory nonsense.)

2 If we co-create the reality we're in, who or what is the other co-creator of that reality? Or is there more than one other co-creator? And if this supposed creation of reality is real - not just a woo-woo metaphor - exactly how does it occur? What is the causal mechanism, and what is the evidence for its occurrence?
'Co-create' is not 'create' [like a God ] in the literal sense.
The main point is
Reality [all-there-is] is entangled with me, you and others;
whatever is the reality, there is no way it can be absolutely independent of the human conditions [me, you and others].

You are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].
You [existence and actions] are a co-contributor [co-creator, co-maker] of the present all-there-is reality?
Question 1: Do you deny and refute this?
Answer: none whatsoever. In other words, this bollocks about creation or co-creation of reality is as credible as supernaturalist creation stories. Your appeal to relativity or quantum mechanical superposition and entanglement is in the long line of false analogies. And anyway, if facts aren't what we say they are, then the claim that there are moral facts is ridiculous.
You missed my point.
My presentation of Newtonian vs Einstein vs Quantum is an analogy to show the independence and interdependence of the human conditions with reality.
I have already explained the-how it is analogous above.

I believe this [evolution of knowledge in Physics] is a very critical analogy for you to break through.

1. The classical Newtonian Physics assumed reality [created by God] is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. Then Einstein realized the humans observers are somehow involved in the conclusion of Physics.
3. Then Bohr [& QM] after his "Eureka" realized conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are totally interdependent with the human conditions.
Question 2: Are you ignorant of the above??

The above is equivalent respectively to;
1. Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism [typical common sense, conventional realism]
2. Internal Realism [Putnam]
3. Empirical Realism /Transcendental Idealism [Kantian].

Question 3: If you don't agree, explain why not?

As I had pointed out, your 'facts' are actually in essence "farts", so you don't have the credibility to argue my facts which are objectively demonstrated with your "facts-as-farts'

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".
More bollocks that deflects from answering the question. The answer to my question is: no, the truth of a factual assertion does not depend simply on its descriptive context. For example, the truth of the chemistry assertion 'water is H2O' does not depend simply on its being a chemistry assertion. And you know this damn well, but you mindlessly repeat your dogma about facts being 'conditioned upon a specific FSK'.
You think is bollocks because your sense of 'what are facts' are merely 'farts'.

Don't need to repeat your above ad nauseam.
It is relatively 'kindergartenish' there is an obvious difference between 'what is reality' and the 'description of reality'.

Note this new thread;
Emergence, Realization of Reality & Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153
where I differentiated between 'what is reality' and the 'description of reality'.
PH: 3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?
As I had claimed whatever is fact, truth and knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK or FSR.
The degree of truth of a fact will depend on the credibility of the FSK where the scientific FSK is the standard, i.e. the most credible at present.
Therefore to check or assess the degree of truth of a factual claim we will have to assess the credibility of a FSK in contrast to the best of the scientific FSK as the standard.
Btw, not all scientific claims from the scientific FSK has the same degree of truth, i.e. subject to the methodology and processes used.
What I am referring in the [best-of-the-scientific-FSK in comparison to the best-of-other FSK.
More deflecting flak. The answer to my question, as you damn well know, is that we have to check a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality that, as you agree, we didn't and don't invent. And that's what makes a descriptive context more or less credible in the first place.

You have nothing but spurious, easily falsified claims and refuted arguments. But hey - just Trumpet them often enough, and, hey presto, you've convinced yourself.
Deflecting?
You have not even counter my arguments at all and effectively.

Yes, first we have to "a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality" but,
1. 'factual' has to be based on real facts not 'farts' like yours.
2. 'reality' is all-there-is including you, me and others which are intricately part and parcel of that reality.

Question 4 Re 2, how can you deny your are not a 'co-creator' [or co-maker] of the reality you are talking about?

As you can see your statement above is too superficial, narrow and shallow regarding 'what is fact' and 'what is reality'.

Trumpet??
I have given sufficient arguments and justifications from so many different perspectives but you have not countered them.

Rather you are the one who is trumpeting your out-of-tune noises without any groundings, references, at all!
What you have been 'bleating' is merely 'non-moral premises cannot be moral conclusions' which is so kindergartenish.

You have not even answer my questions;
1. How can non-scientific events be concluded as scientific facts?
2. How can non-legal evidences be judged as a legal fact?
3. How can a non-p fact be concluded as a p fact?

All the above are evidently done in practice and reality.
Observed non-scientific falling objects are converted to objective scientific facts re gravity via a scientific FSK.
So observed non-moral [but scientific facts] can be processed as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.
Question 5 Do you have a counter to the above?

Btw, don't run away from the questions I raised above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:01 pm Cut the guy some slack geez.. if we add all those years together, we get that he must be at least 150 by now. I say he's holding up pretty well for his age.
You are insulting your own intelligence.
True, I had spent 3 years full time researching Kant and another 3 years on the Quran, that is only 6 years.

Other than making noises about someone, if you don't agree with anyone you should provide sound arguments and justifications without the very childish personal attacks, name callings, etc.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:54 am
Atla wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:01 pm Cut the guy some slack geez.. if we add all those years together, we get that he must be at least 150 by now. I say he's holding up pretty well for his age.
You are insulting your own intelligence.
True, I had spent 3 years full time researching Kant and another 3 years on the Quran, that is only 6 years.

Other than making noises about someone, if you don't agree with anyone you should provide sound arguments and justifications without the very childish personal attacks, name callings, etc.
Not if the sound arguments consistently fall on deaf ears. How old are you by the way?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:54 am
Atla wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:01 pm Cut the guy some slack geez.. if we add all those years together, we get that he must be at least 150 by now. I say he's holding up pretty well for his age.
You are insulting your own intelligence.
True, I had spent 3 years full time researching Kant and another 3 years on the Quran, that is only 6 years.

Other than making noises about someone, if you don't agree with anyone you should provide sound arguments and justifications without the very childish personal attacks, name callings, etc.
Not if the sound arguments consistently fall on deaf ears. How old are you by the way?
I have never avoided [nor will avoid] arguments if they are sound [where?], why do you think I'd spent years doing in depth research for sound arguments. Not interested to mention age, it is the arguments and justifications that count.

Where have you presented any well-researched argument[s] to back your views?

Note, there are many highly contentious issues wherein one will have to present more in-depth arguments and justifications to support their views, and not based merely on the insistence theirs is the sound view.
This is why I resorted to spending 3 years full time on Kant to get greater leverage to support my views re Kant.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:20 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:54 am
You are insulting your own intelligence.
True, I had spent 3 years full time researching Kant and another 3 years on the Quran, that is only 6 years.

Other than making noises about someone, if you don't agree with anyone you should provide sound arguments and justifications without the very childish personal attacks, name callings, etc.
Not if the sound arguments consistently fall on deaf ears. How old are you by the way?
I have never avoided [nor will avoid] arguments if they are sound [where?], why do you think I'd spent years doing in depth research for sound arguments. Not interested to mention age, it is the arguments and justifications that count.

Where have you presented any well-researched argument[s] to back your views?

Note, there are many highly contentious issues wherein one will have to present more in-depth arguments and justifications to support their views, and not based merely on the insistence theirs is the sound view.
This is why I resorted to spending 3 years full time on Kant to get greater leverage to support my views re Kant.
All you did for years was avoid addressing sound arguments (you didn't understand them to be more correct), why do you think we mock you?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:20 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:58 am
Not if the sound arguments consistently fall on deaf ears. How old are you by the way?
I have never avoided [nor will avoid] arguments if they are sound [where?], why do you think I'd spent years doing in depth research for sound arguments. Not interested to mention age, it is the arguments and justifications that count.

Where have you presented any well-researched argument[s] to back your views?

Note, there are many highly contentious issues wherein one will have to present more in-depth arguments and justifications to support their views, and not based merely on the insistence theirs is the sound view.
This is why I resorted to spending 3 years full time on Kant to get greater leverage to support my views re Kant.
All you did for years was avoid addressing sound arguments (you didn't understand them to be more correct), why do you think we mock you?
Noises as usual.
Where are the sound arguments I have avoided - show me the evidences?
You mean the "farts as facts" of Peter Holmes?

Psychologically those who mock are the insecured ones who are triggered subliminally by their ignorance and limitation in the knowledge necessary to argue their case. Some will even kill their opponents who oppose their views.

Btw, numbers by majority alone do not mean 'more correct'; history has shown the majority is wrong most of the time in resisting the minority views of advancing knowledge.
What counts are critical thinking and rational sound arguments.

Don't just make noises, show the evidences [obvious and sufficient] to justify your above views.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:58 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:20 am
I have never avoided [nor will avoid] arguments if they are sound [where?], why do you think I'd spent years doing in depth research for sound arguments. Not interested to mention age, it is the arguments and justifications that count.

Where have you presented any well-researched argument[s] to back your views?

Note, there are many highly contentious issues wherein one will have to present more in-depth arguments and justifications to support their views, and not based merely on the insistence theirs is the sound view.
This is why I resorted to spending 3 years full time on Kant to get greater leverage to support my views re Kant.
All you did for years was avoid addressing sound arguments (you didn't understand them to be more correct), why do you think we mock you?
Noises as usual.
Where are the sound arguments I have avoided - show me the evidences?
You mean the "farts as facts" of Peter Holmes?

Psychologically those who mock are the insecured ones who are triggered subliminally by their ignorance and limitation in the knowledge necessary to argue their case. Some will even kill their opponents who oppose their views.

Btw, numbers by majority alone do not mean 'more correct'; history has shown the majority is wrong most of the time in resisting the minority views of advancing knowledge.
What counts are critical thinking and rational sound arguments.

Don't just make noises, show the evidences [obvious and sufficient] to justify your above views.
Forget it VA, the evidence was there in like half the posts. Your overconfidence in Kant was picked on, your misunderstandings about science were picked on, your horrific reasonings about anti-realism, morality etc. were picked on, and the list goes on and on, and you missed it all.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 am Peter, first you need to apologize for accusing me that I did not answer your question as if I am a coward running away.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:26 am So your answer is: we didn't and don't create the reality - the 'reality-in-general' - that we describe in different ways. So you are, at least, a methodological realist. Congratulations, and welcome back to reality.
Nope I am not a methodological realist but rather in this case I am not a God who created reality.
But then you also say we co-create the reality with which we're 'entangled'. Questions:

1 Is that co-created reality different from the reality that we didn't and don't create? And how are they related? (This is patent, contradictory nonsense.)

2 If we co-create the reality we're in, who or what is the other co-creator of that reality? Or is there more than one other co-creator? And if this supposed creation of reality is real - not just a woo-woo metaphor - exactly how does it occur? What is the causal mechanism, and what is the evidence for its occurrence?
'Co-create' is not 'create' [like a God ] in the literal sense.
The main point is
Reality [all-there-is] is entangled with me, you and others;
whatever is the reality, there is no way it can be absolutely independent of the human conditions [me, you and others].

You are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].
You [existence and actions] are a co-contributor [co-creator, co-maker] of the present all-there-is reality?
Question 1: Do you deny and refute this?
Answer: none whatsoever. In other words, this bollocks about creation or co-creation of reality is as credible as supernaturalist creation stories. Your appeal to relativity or quantum mechanical superposition and entanglement is in the long line of false analogies. And anyway, if facts aren't what we say they are, then the claim that there are moral facts is ridiculous.
You missed my point.
My presentation of Newtonian vs Einstein vs Quantum is an analogy to show the independence and interdependence of the human conditions with reality.
I have already explained the-how it is analogous above.

I believe this [evolution of knowledge in Physics] is a very critical analogy for you to break through.

1. The classical Newtonian Physics assumed reality [created by God] is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. Then Einstein realized the humans observers are somehow involved in the conclusion of Physics.
3. Then Bohr [& QM] after his "Eureka" realized conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are totally interdependent with the human conditions.
Question 2: Are you ignorant of the above??

The above is equivalent respectively to;
1. Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism [typical common sense, conventional realism]
2. Internal Realism [Putnam]
3. Empirical Realism /Transcendental Idealism [Kantian].

Question 3: If you don't agree, explain why not?

As I had pointed out, your 'facts' are actually in essence "farts", so you don't have the credibility to argue my facts which are objectively demonstrated with your "facts-as-farts'

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".
More bollocks that deflects from answering the question. The answer to my question is: no, the truth of a factual assertion does not depend simply on its descriptive context. For example, the truth of the chemistry assertion 'water is H2O' does not depend simply on its being a chemistry assertion. And you know this damn well, but you mindlessly repeat your dogma about facts being 'conditioned upon a specific FSK'.
You think is bollocks because your sense of 'what are facts' are merely 'farts'.

Don't need to repeat your above ad nauseam.
It is relatively 'kindergartenish' there is an obvious difference between 'what is reality' and the 'description of reality'.

Note this new thread;
Emergence, Realization of Reality & Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153
where I differentiated between 'what is reality' and the 'description of reality'.
PH: 3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?
As I had claimed whatever is fact, truth and knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK or FSR.
The degree of truth of a fact will depend on the credibility of the FSK where the scientific FSK is the standard, i.e. the most credible at present.
Therefore to check or assess the degree of truth of a factual claim we will have to assess the credibility of a FSK in contrast to the best of the scientific FSK as the standard.
Btw, not all scientific claims from the scientific FSK has the same degree of truth, i.e. subject to the methodology and processes used.
What I am referring in the [best-of-the-scientific-FSK in comparison to the best-of-other FSK.
More deflecting flak. The answer to my question, as you damn well know, is that we have to check a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality that, as you agree, we didn't and don't invent. And that's what makes a descriptive context more or less credible in the first place.

You have nothing but spurious, easily falsified claims and refuted arguments. But hey - just Trumpet them often enough, and, hey presto, you've convinced yourself.
Deflecting?
You have not even counter my arguments at all and effectively.

Yes, first we have to "a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality" but,
1. 'factual' has to be based on real facts not 'farts' like yours.
2. 'reality' is all-there-is including you, me and others which are intricately part and parcel of that reality.

Question 4 Re 2, how can you deny your are not a 'co-creator' [or co-maker] of the reality you are talking about?

As you can see your statement above is too superficial, narrow and shallow regarding 'what is fact' and 'what is reality'.

Trumpet??
I have given sufficient arguments and justifications from so many different perspectives but you have not countered them.

Rather you are the one who is trumpeting your out-of-tune noises without any groundings, references, at all!
What you have been 'bleating' is merely 'non-moral premises cannot be moral conclusions' which is so kindergartenish.

You have not even answer my questions;
1. How can non-scientific events be concluded as scientific facts?
2. How can non-legal evidences be judged as a legal fact?
3. How can a non-p fact be concluded as a p fact?

All the above are evidently done in practice and reality.
Observed non-scientific falling objects are converted to objective scientific facts re gravity via a scientific FSK.
So observed non-moral [but scientific facts] can be processed as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.
Question 5 Do you have a counter to the above?

Btw, don't run away from the questions I raised above.
1 When we shifted from Newtonian, to Einsteinian to quantum mechanics, it wasn't reality that changed - the reality that you agree we didn't and don't invent.

2 There's no such thing as a non-scientific event. Any thing or event can be described in a variety of different ways. And the description doesn't create the thing or event. We can't name or describe something into or out of existence. It just does/n't, did/n't exist. And that's why your FSK-FSR idea doesn't do the work you think it does.

3 You simply refuse to answer this question: what makes a descriptive context credible? Why are chemistry claims credible, while astrology claims are incredible? Answer: evidence from the reality outside the descriptive context. Oops. Can't say that, cos that's recognising that (a) realism is roughly correct.

Error. Re-boot and repeat: "A fact is always conditioned within a more or less credible framework and system of knowledge which is entangled with the human conditions."

Yes. And what makes a descriptive context credible? Erm. Alert. Alert. Cognitive dissonance. Error. Re-boot and repeat.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:58 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:41 am
All you did for years was avoid addressing sound arguments (you didn't understand them to be more correct), why do you think we mock you?
Noises as usual.
Where are the sound arguments I have avoided - show me the evidences?
You mean the "farts as facts" of Peter Holmes?

Psychologically those who mock are the insecured ones who are triggered subliminally by their ignorance and limitation in the knowledge necessary to argue their case. Some will even kill their opponents who oppose their views.

Btw, numbers by majority alone do not mean 'more correct'; history has shown the majority is wrong most of the time in resisting the minority views of advancing knowledge.
What counts are critical thinking and rational sound arguments.

Don't just make noises, show the evidences [obvious and sufficient] to justify your above views.
Forget it VA, the evidence was there in like half the posts. Your overconfidence in Kant was picked on, your misunderstandings about science were picked on, your horrific reasonings about anti-realism, morality etc. were picked on, and the list goes on and on, and you missed it all.
Again you are making merely noises.
That there are disagreements with my views do not necessary they are frivolous or false.
If you are non-theists and you are facing a theists majority forum, they will say the same thing as what you are saying now.

As I stated, what count is solid arguments and justifications.
Are you that blind to insist Peter Holmes 'farts as facts' are absolute true and everyone should accept it just because he keep insisting on merely that point?

Don't just make noises, give me specific examples [sufficient] to justify your judgment on my views.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:10 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:58 am
Noises as usual.
Where are the sound arguments I have avoided - show me the evidences?
You mean the "farts as facts" of Peter Holmes?

Psychologically those who mock are the insecured ones who are triggered subliminally by their ignorance and limitation in the knowledge necessary to argue their case. Some will even kill their opponents who oppose their views.

Btw, numbers by majority alone do not mean 'more correct'; history has shown the majority is wrong most of the time in resisting the minority views of advancing knowledge.
What counts are critical thinking and rational sound arguments.

Don't just make noises, show the evidences [obvious and sufficient] to justify your above views.
Forget it VA, the evidence was there in like half the posts. Your overconfidence in Kant was picked on, your misunderstandings about science were picked on, your horrific reasonings about anti-realism, morality etc. were picked on, and the list goes on and on, and you missed it all.
Again you are making merely noises.
That there are disagreements with my views do not necessary they are frivolous or false.
If you are non-theists and you are facing a theists majority forum, they will say the same thing as what you are saying now.

As I stated, what count is solid arguments and justifications.
Are you that blind to insist Peter Holmes 'farts as facts' are absolute true and everyone should accept it just because he keep insisting on merely that point?

Don't just make noises, give me specific examples [sufficient] to justify your judgment on my views.
We already had longer debates about many topics, you usually made a fool out of yourself , as I said forget it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:53 am 1 When we shifted from Newtonian, to Einsteinian to quantum mechanics, it wasn't reality that changed - the reality that you agree we didn't and don't invent.
You did not answer my questions but rather pushed your dogmatically.

When and where did I say reality [all there is] has changed in the shifting from Newtonian to Einstein to Quantum?

The point is the Newtonian view of Reality [analogous to your present view of reality] is an unrealistic view of reality but our view of reality got more realistic as we shifted to the Einsteinian to the QM view. Since there is no 100% I would say the QM view is 99% realistic relative to the Newtonian god driven view of 30% realistic.

2 There's no such thing as a non-scientific event. Any thing or event can be described in a variety of different ways. And the description doesn't create the thing or event. We can't name or describe something into or out of existence. It just does/n't, did/n't exist. And that's why your FSK-FSR idea doesn't do the work you think it does.
I have already agree we cannot name or describe something into or out of existence.

But existence of things and reality emerge upon the state of the human conditions and thereupon realized as real, only thereafter it is described or named.

Note again the emergence of this Mask B [as a 'real' 3D] (Mask A is the actual convex mask].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M
What is Mask B did not pre-exists until it got entangled with the human conditions and thereupon emerged as 'real' upon your cognition.

So our human conditions do enable things to emerge into existence [albeit as an illusion in this case].
Thereafter we describe the illusion.
Do you dispute this?

PH: There's no such thing as a non-scientific event.
You can't be that ignorant on this.
All common sense and conventional events are non-scientific if they are not qualified from the scientific FSK.
With the conditions of the scientific FSK scientific reality emerges as scientific facts and are described thereof.
3 You simply refuse to answer this question: what makes a descriptive context credible? Why are chemistry claims credible, while astrology claims are incredible? Answer: evidence from the reality outside the descriptive context. Oops. Can't say that, cos that's recognising that (a) realism is roughly correct.
I have already answer the above in a thread;
Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34157

This exposed your integrity and honesty.
Error. Re-boot and repeat: "A fact is always conditioned within a more or less credible framework and system of knowledge which is entangled with the human conditions."

Yes. And what makes a descriptive context credible? Erm. Alert. Alert. Cognitive dissonance. Error. Re-boot and repeat.
Note my answer and link above.

Are you implying you believe theistic or pseudo-scientific claims are as credible as scientific claims?
If you can explain why scientific claims are more credible than theistic claims, therein you will find the answer to your question to me, beside the one I have provided in the link above.

Don't be a coward, provide the answers to the unanswered questions I raised in my previous post.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:10 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:03 am
Forget it VA, the evidence was there in like half the posts. Your overconfidence in Kant was picked on, your misunderstandings about science were picked on, your horrific reasonings about anti-realism, morality etc. were picked on, and the list goes on and on, and you missed it all.
Again you are making merely noises.
That there are disagreements with my views do not necessary they are frivolous or false.
If you are non-theists and you are facing a theists majority forum, they will say the same thing as what you are saying now.

As I stated, what count is solid arguments and justifications.
Are you that blind to insist Peter Holmes 'farts as facts' are absolute true and everyone should accept it just because he keep insisting on merely that point?

Don't just make noises, give me specific examples [sufficient] to justify your judgment on my views.
We already had longer debates about many topics, you usually made a fool out of yourself , as I said forget it.
Your memory is not reliable.
I don't recall you have any credible refutations, else I would not have let it go. It is an insult for me to ignore any sound arguments presented intellectually and amicably.

Note the hundred++ of threads I have raised in order to go into more details whenever there are serious disputes on the various issues.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:54 am
Atla wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:01 pm Cut the guy some slack geez.. if we add all those years together, we get that he must be at least 150 by now. I say he's holding up pretty well for his age.
You are insulting your own intelligence.
True, I had spent 3 years full time researching Kant and another 3 years on the Quran, that is only 6 years.

Other than making noises about someone, if you don't agree with anyone you should provide sound arguments and justifications without the very childish personal attacks, name callings, etc.
And it never occurs to him that spending three years converting the Quran into a spreadsheet is a lunatic waste of time that could be undertaken only by a weird psycho.
Post Reply