There are Divine "Moral Facts"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I qualified "moral facts" in " ".

Here is my explanation to justify the OP;

1. There is no absolute knowledge.

2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

3. At present, Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.

4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.

5. According to my proposed Moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK],
the inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human" programmed within the DNA and brain of each humans is a fact, i.e. a moral fact. This is verifiable empirically and justifiable with philosophical reasonings.

6. In the Gospels of Christianity, there is the overriding pacifist command of "Love all and even enemies" thus that would cover 'Thou Shall Not Kill". This particular command from the Christianity FSK is a divine moral fact from within the Divine Moral System of Christianity.

7. However the Christianity Moral FSK is not credible at all since it is grounded on an illusory God. Nevertheless 'Thou Shall Not Kill" is still a moral fact, albeit, it is of the lowest degrees of credibility.

8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.

9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.

10. So there are 'Divine Moral Facts' from the Christian's Moral Framework and System of Knowledge but such moral facts are of the lowest credibility; it is based on faith on an illusory God and is not verified empirically nor justified via philosophical reasoning.

11. Whilst such divine moral facts are of the lowest credibility, they deserve to be categorized within the subset of facts [no facts are absolute anyway] because these facts do contribute positively to humanity optimal to the certain past and present state of the majority [not necessary for the future].

12. Others [Peter Holmes, et. al.] will deny the above are facts, i.e. moral facts. But that is because they are relying on a miserable framework and System of Knowledge that is based on "empty" language and words [begging the question] rather than on empirical evidence and solid philosophical reasonings.

13. So, there are divine moral facts based on the above qualified arguments.

Views?

[Peter Holmes]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

The above is merely noises.
Where are your counter to the above and justifications to your opinion, note at best, that is your opinion.

Btw, your rejection of the above are merely conditioned upon a group of philosophers [analytic, linguistic, ordinary language] banging on some illusory 'states of affairs' [propositions] which are groundless.
In addition, you don't seem to know which are the philosophers that support your opinions. If so, name the more famous ones.

Meanwhile my proposals are grounded on and related to scientific facts within a moral framework and system.

[Iwannaplato]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

The above is merely noises.
Where are your counter to the above and justifications to your opinion, note at best, that is your opinion.

Btw, your rejection of the above are merely conditioned upon a group of philosophers [analytic, linguistic, ordinary language] banging on some illusory 'states of affairs' [propositions] which are groundless.
In addition, you don't seem to know which are the philosophers that support your opinions. If so, name the more famous ones.

Meanwhile my proposals are grounded on and related to scientific facts within a moral framework and system.

He has spent an incredible amount of time supporting his own opinion. What happens is that when people interact with you, you don't respond to the points made. You respond to other points, or remake your very oddly worded assertions in new oddly worded ways. The quoted post of yours above gives examples of this. So, sure, he kinda gave up. Why remake arguments that you have seen, since you have posted in those threads, and which you failed to rebut?

But let's look a little at the above post.

You claim to know what he bases his position on. You tell him he doesn't seem to know this. Then you ask for the philosophers that support his positions. There are all sorts of wrongheaded assumptions in here. IOW you make a lot of claims without backing them up. It ends up being a kind of psychic claim.

I know your ideas are based on X.
I have refuted X. Or more likely with you 'X is wrong' as bald assertion.
Then the confused way of treating philosophers, famous ones, like they are research.
IOW demonstrate PH that your position is correct by an appeal to authority (rather than, with science, an appeal to research results). You don't seem to realize what some of the most basic philosophical fallacies are, since you repeatedly, and proudly, use them.

Meanwhile my proposals are grounded on and related to scientific facts within a moral framework and system.

Parts of your proposals - which by the way you don't treat as proposals referring to them as (collections) of facts - refer to science. But parts are value based. So, it doesn't matter, in the least, to PH's position that part of your proposals are 'related to or grounded on' science since THEY ARE DEPENDENT on subjective vallue judgments. Utterly dependent on them.

If one multiplies 5x7x12x4, sure, you get a positive integer. But if zero is in the list of numbers you are multiplying you do not get a positive integer in that series.

And so it is with your 'proposals'. Whatever science you use in these, PH is going to focus on those moments where values come in and justify THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. The entire proposal is based on value judgments THAT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE CORRECT VIA SCIENCE. The entire proposal hinges on the value assertion part of the argument being true and there is no way to determine this. And before you snarl about nothing being absolute truth, I am not saying your proposal must be absolutely true. I am not saying it fails on that ground. What I am saying is that those portions that are subjective are 1) necessary for any conclusion and 2) lack not just absolute certainty, but lack any possible way of gathering any evidence in favor of them at all. The moment you say this consequence of behavior X is good, that step in the argument cannot be demonstrated to be true. It can be demonstrated to be shared as a value by some people or even many or even most. That's it. So your proposals despite having some science in them do not have any evidence like scientific evidence in their favor because they are subjunctive.

If X is good, then behavior Y is good.

But there is no way, and no way in any way related to science, to show that X is good. We can show possibly that it leads to certain consquences. We could say how it feels when we see or experience it. But we cannot demonstrate its goodness.

So, it is not merely absolute certainty that is missing - as in any position - it is any percentage at all of certainty that is missing. It doesn't even qualify as a maybe, if maybe means there is more, say, than 10% chance that it is true. It is shooting in the dark. It's a category error.

But I love that the atheist is here saying there are Divine 'moral facts'.

He puts moral facts in citations marks, which means they are not facts, but leaves Divine literal.

Welcome to theism.

[FlashDangerpants]

10. So there are 'Divine Moral Facts' from the Christian's Moral Framework and System of Knowledge but such moral facts are of the lowest credibility; it is based on faith on an illusory God and is not verified empirically nor justified via philosophical reasoning.

That is the saddest, sorriest, most complete logical failure that even this very low quality forum has ever witnessed.

[Peter Holmes]

10. So there are 'Divine Moral Facts' from the Christian's Moral Framework and System of Knowledge but such moral facts are of the lowest credibility; it is based on faith on an illusory God and is not verified empirically nor justified via philosophical reasoning.

That is the saddest, sorriest, most complete logical failure that even this very low quality forum has ever witnessed.

Agreed. And I think the fallacy is this: What we call a fact exists within a descriptive context; therefore any descriptive context can produce what we call facts. So a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' (such as a Christian one) can produce moral facts. Only they may not be very good facts, because...lack of empitical evidence and sound philosophical reasoning - ie, lack of a sound descriptive context. Erm.

A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

10. So there are 'Divine Moral Facts' from the Christian's Moral Framework and System of Knowledge but such moral facts are of the lowest credibility; it is based on faith on an illusory God and is not verified empirically nor justified via philosophical reasoning.

That is the saddest, sorriest, most complete logical failure that even this very low quality forum has ever witnessed.

Agreed. And I think the fallacy is this: What we call a fact exists within a descriptive context; therefore any descriptive context can produce what we call facts. So a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' (such as a Christian one) can produce moral facts. Only they may not be very good facts, because...lack of empitical evidence and sound philosophical reasoning - ie, lack of a sound descriptive context. Erm.

A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

"what we call facts"

You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.
I have defined "facts" as that which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.

There is no absoluteness in the usage of 'words' and its meaning which changes and vary all the time. Note how the word 'gay' was used then and now.
It is sufficient as long as one qualify the 'word' and its related meaning.

Note this from another thread;
You cannot escape the point that what you claimed as 'facts' are conditioned upon a certain FSK, I guess, analytic, linguistic, ordinary language, etc. which are at best very flimsy as improvised from the condemned logical-positivist FSK.

If you are still not sure of yourself, I can provide you the relevant reading list to support your claims.

[FlashDangerpants]

That is the saddest, sorriest, most complete logical failure that even this very low quality forum has ever witnessed.

Agreed. And I think the fallacy is this: What we call a fact exists within a descriptive context; therefore any descriptive context can produce what we call facts. So a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' (such as a Christian one) can produce moral facts. Only they may not be very good facts, because...lack of empitical evidence and sound philosophical reasoning - ie, lack of a sound descriptive context. Erm.

A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

"what we call facts"

You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.
I have defined "facts" as that which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.

Well now You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.

For, what is this, the 80th time now?... You are trying to analyse the concept of a fact in terms of what it is made out of. If you had more talent you would analyse it in terms of what function it performs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed. And I think the fallacy is this: What we call a fact exists within a descriptive context; therefore any descriptive context can produce what we call facts. So a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' (such as a Christian one) can produce moral facts. Only they may not be very good facts, because...lack of empitical evidence and sound philosophical reasoning - ie, lack of a sound descriptive context. Erm.

A dog chasing its tail needs to rethink the premise.

"what we call facts"

You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.
I have defined "facts" as that which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.

Well now You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.

For, what is this, the 80th time now?... You are trying to analyse the concept of a fact in terms of what it is made out of. If you had more talent you would analyse it in terms of what function it performs.

Function?? obviously you have not bothered to understand my points.

Note this thread,
Christian Morality - The Most Optimal for the PRESENT
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34602

Thus whatever are Christian moral facts [despite its irrationality], what is critical is whether they have an optimal contribution to the individual[s] or humanity.

I had just referred to John Searle's institutional or constitutional facts in contrast to bare brute linguistic-based facts.

All my philosophical points re facts or others are always directed at functions and how they can contribute to the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and humanity in line with my definition of 'what is philosophy'.

[FlashDangerpants]

"what we call facts"

You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.
I have defined "facts" as that which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.

Well now You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.

For, what is this, the 80th time now?... You are trying to analyse the concept of a fact in terms of what it is made out of. If you had more talent you would analyse it in terms of what function it performs.

Function?? obviously you have not bothered to understand my points.

Note this thread,
Christian Morality - The Most Optimal for the PRESENT
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34602

Thus whatever are Christian moral facts [despite its irrationality], what is critical is whether they have an optimal contribution to the individual[s] or humanity.

I had just referred to John Searle's institutional or constitutional facts in contrast to bare brute linguistic-based facts.

All my philosophical points re facts or others are always directed at functions and how they can contribute to the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and humanity in line with my definition of 'what is philosophy'.

That other thread is just absurdly stupid and I'm not going to touch it with a shitty stick.

A defining feature of facts, the concept that real people use (and which has nothing to do with any FSK thing) is that we use it to determine true and false statements. If there is a moral fact that it is morally wrong to drown a puppy in the toilet, and if there is also a moral fact that interractions between humans and animals are not moral matters, then you have used the word "fact" in error.

That's what fact does, what it means is what we do with it. You routinely misuse the concept. you have been aware of this problem for years and have done nothing but try to not deal with it.

You are bad at this stuff.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well now You think you own the term 'facts' but that is not the case.

For, what is this, the 80th time now?... You are trying to analyse the concept of a fact in terms of what it is made out of. If you had more talent you would analyse it in terms of what function it performs.

Function?? obviously you have not bothered to understand my points.

Note this thread,
Christian Morality - The Most Optimal for the PRESENT
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34602

Thus whatever are Christian moral facts [despite its irrationality], what is critical is whether they have an optimal contribution to the individual[s] or humanity.

I had just referred to John Searle's institutional or constitutional facts in contrast to bare brute linguistic-based facts.

All my philosophical points re facts or others are always directed at functions and how they can contribute to the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and humanity in line with my definition of 'what is philosophy'.

That other thread is just absurdly stupid and I'm not going to touch it with a shitty stick.

A defining feature of facts, the concept that real people use (and which has nothing to do with any FSK thing) is that we use it to determine true and false statements. If there is a moral fact that it is morally wrong to drown a puppy in the toilet, and if there is also a moral fact that interractions between humans and animals are not moral matters, then you have used the word "fact" in error.

That's what fact does, what it means is what we do with it. You routinely misuse the concept. you have been aware of this problem for years and have done nothing but try to not deal with it.

You are bad at this stuff.

Actually your use of 'fact' as confined to states of affairs, proposition, concept [atomic] and likes are the shitty one without any solid reference to reality.
Yes, there is some use for your definition of fact, but it has to depend on the specific "invented" FSK which is shitty itself.

Note the more general acceptable definition of what is fact [the concept that real people use ].

A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Surely scientific facts has something to do with the scientific FSK and these are translatable to utility for mankind?
You deny that?

I ask Peter Holmes for his origins of 'what is fact' and the supporting reference, but so far he had failed to do so out of ignorance or fear of being exposed as a fraud. What about you, can you tell me the historical origin of 'what is fact'.

How about you starting with Russell's Logical Atomism, then logical facts, then taken by Carnap to the condemned logical positivists and therefrom improvised without any groundings by the current analytic linguistic and ordinary language philosophers.
I have been refreshing and reading on this recently.

So your sense of 'what is fact' [accepted by some influential philosophers but it] is actually shit and you want to use such shit to counter my moral fact which is more Soundly related to the WIKI's definition above.

Just don't make noises, show me origin of your term 'fact' and justification that it is most sound amidst to all the critiques against it?

[Peter Holmes]

Function?? obviously you have not bothered to understand my points.

Note this thread,
Christian Morality - The Most Optimal for the PRESENT
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34602

Thus whatever are Christian moral facts [despite its irrationality], what is critical is whether they have an optimal contribution to the individual[s] or humanity.

I had just referred to John Searle's institutional or constitutional facts in contrast to bare brute linguistic-based facts.

All my philosophical points re facts or others are always directed at functions and how they can contribute to the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and humanity in line with my definition of 'what is philosophy'.

That other thread is just absurdly stupid and I'm not going to touch it with a shitty stick.

A defining feature of facts, the concept that real people use (and which has nothing to do with any FSK thing) is that we use it to determine true and false statements. If there is a moral fact that it is morally wrong to drown a puppy in the toilet, and if there is also a moral fact that interractions between humans and animals are not moral matters, then you have used the word "fact" in error.

That's what fact does, what it means is what we do with it. You routinely misuse the concept. you have been aware of this problem for years and have done nothing but try to not deal with it.

You are bad at this stuff.

Actually your use of 'fact' as confined to states of affairs, proposition, concept [atomic] and likes are the shitty one without any solid reference to reality.
Yes, there is some use for your definition of fact, but it has to depend on the specific "invented" FSK which is shitty itself.

Note the more general acceptable definition of what is fact [the concept that real people use ].

A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Surely scientific facts has something to do with the scientific FSK and these are translatable to utility for mankind?
You deny that?

I ask Peter Holmes for his origins of 'what is fact' and the supporting reference, but so far he had failed to do so out of ignorance or fear of being exposed as a fraud. What about you, can you tell me the historical origin of 'what is fact'.

How about you starting with Russell's Logical Atomism, then logical facts, then taken by Carnap to the condemned logical positivists and therefrom improvised without any groundings by the current analytic linguistic and ordinary language philosophers.
I have been refreshing and reading on this recently.

So your sense of 'what is fact' [accepted by some influential philosophers but it] is actually shit and you want to use such shit to counter my moral fact which is more Soundly related to the WIKI's definition above.

Just don't make noises, show me origin of your term 'fact' and justification that it is most sound amidst to all the critiques against it?

Here are two pretty standard dictionary definitions of a fact:


Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

1 : something that really exists or has occurred

FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists

So my description of what we (English speakers) call a fact is correct: a feature of reality that is or was the case. But, as I've pointed out many times, we also use the word 'fact' to mean a description of such a feature of reality that's true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

Obviously, a description - typically a linguistic expression - exists only within a descriptive context - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. But facts-as-features-of-reality don't, and to say they do is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - to conflate the two radically different meanings of the word 'fact'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are two pretty standard dictionary definitions of a fact:

Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

1 : something that really exists or has occurred

FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists

We can agree to the above crude dictionary definitions.
But we are doing philosophy so we need a more precise definition which is represented more clearer by the Wiki definition I linked.

Note:
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
The above implied scientific facts, truths & knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], & model comprising assumptions, principles, scientific methods, peer review, intersubjective consensus, etc.
You agree or agree to this more precise definition?

As such, legal facts, political facts, geographical facts, economic facts, demographic facts etc. are also conditioned upon their specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

So along the same principle & lines as above, moral facts [note moral potentials] are also processed and conditioned upon its specific moral FSK.

I don't see how the above approach to the definition of what is fact is problematic?

So my description of what we (English speakers) call a fact is correct: a feature of reality that is or was the case. But, as I've pointed out many times, we also use the word 'fact' to mean a description of such a feature of reality that's true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

Given the above, this additional description [no difference to any language speaker] is unnecessary as it will only cause more confusions.

Obviously, a description - typically a linguistic expression - exists only within a descriptive context - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. But facts-as-features-of-reality don't, and to say they do is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - to conflate the two radically different meanings of the word 'fact'.

This definition of what is fact is conditioned by its specific FSK, i.e. the linguistic & ordinary language FSK which is flimsy which I argued is improvised from the condemned logical positivist FSK.
This is merely a specific kind of qualified fact and not representative of what-is-fact in general.

[bahman]

Note I qualified "moral facts" in " ".

Here is my explanation to justify the OP;

1. There is no absolute knowledge.

That is not true.

2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

3. At present, Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.

You forgot art, mathematics, and philosophy.

4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.

You cannot derive moral truth from scientific FSK.

5. According to my proposed Moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK],
the inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human" programmed within the DNA and brain of each humans is a fact, i.e. a moral fact. This is verifiable empirically and justifiable with philosophical reasonings.

There are studies that show that there is a link between specific genes and crimes.

6. In the Gospels of Christianity, there is the overriding pacifist command of "Love all and even enemies" thus that would cover 'Thou Shall Not Kill". This particular command from the Christianity FSK is a divine moral fact from within the Divine Moral System of Christianity.

7. However the Christianity Moral FSK is not credible at all since it is grounded on an illusory God. Nevertheless 'Thou Shall Not Kill" is still a moral fact, albeit, it is of the lowest degrees of credibility.

Killing is permissible depending on the circumstances. Think of people in locked-in syndrome.

8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.

9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.

10. So there are 'Divine Moral Facts' from the Christian's Moral Framework and System of Knowledge but such moral facts are of the lowest credibility; it is based on faith on an illusory God and is not verified empirically nor justified via philosophical reasoning.

11. Whilst such divine moral facts are of the lowest credibility, they deserve to be categorized within the subset of facts [no facts are absolute anyway] because these facts do contribute positively to humanity optimal to the certain past and present state of the majority [not necessary for the future].

12. Others [Peter Holmes, et. al.] will deny the above are facts, i.e. moral facts. But that is because they are relying on a miserable framework and System of Knowledge that is based on "empty" language and words [begging the question] rather than on empirical evidence and solid philosophical reasonings.

13. So, there are divine moral facts based on the above qualified arguments.

Views?

13 does not follow.

[bahman]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

What if someone tries to beat you to death!?