Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 3:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 2:03 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 7:04 am
No there isn't.
Yeah, there is. But you have to allow the evidence to be recognized as evidence. If you just gratuitiously insist there's none, and never look, then not surprisingly, you'll remain convinced of that.
But the deficiency won't be in the evidence.
Then all I will say is that I have never seen you produce anything as evidence that genuinely deserves that name.
You say that you don't even KNOW what you would ever accept as evidence for God.
If a man doesn't know what a "squirrel" is, he'll remained convinced all his life that he's never seen a "squirrel," even if one nests on his head.
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:So you agree it enables them to arrive at conclusions. Well if those conclusions relate to moral issues, they have arrived at moral conclusions.
If that were true, then you'd have to think that HItler's "Final Solution" was moral.
The final solution is a moral issue, and I decide what moral status that issue deserves based on my sense of right and wrong. I personally think the final solution was immoral. When I think about it, I get a twinge.
And Hitler, and Goebbels, et al. had the opposite "twinge." So nobody wins, and we know nothing about what is or is not moral.
The term, "moral conclusion", can be interpreted two ways: It could mean a decision concerning a moral matter or issue, or it could mean a decision that is morally good. I meant the former, which I think you knew perfectly well, but you interpreted my words as meaning the latter.
But if all you meant was "a conclusion," then why did you tack the word "moral" onto it? Are you convinced there are no
immoral conclusions? Or are you merely saying that there's no way for anybody ever to know?
But if that's what you mean, then the term "moral" adds no meaning of its own to the sentence. You'd have been better off not to include it, since it's a waste of space, apparently.
In this context, the word, "moral", means about morality, but does not imply the quality of it,
But according to Subjectivism, there is no such thing as "moral." There's only whatever feeling the individual has, and we don't have any way at all to tell what is causing the feeling, or whether it's a feeling that should be regarded or disregarded. So that dodge doesn't solve the problem at all. It just means that, once again, you're not meaning anything at all when you say "moral."
There are good conclusions and evil conclusions. But which they are will not be decided by whether or not they relate to a moral issue, but by which side of that moral issue they come down on.
That is correct, and I never said otherwise. Again; there are morally good conclusions and morally bad conclusions, but both are moral conclusions in the sense of being conclusions related to moral issues.
What you're doing is making an error of amphiboly. "Related to moral issues," is not identical to "right" or "wrong." One is "identifying an issue"; the other is "evaluating that issue in terms of right and wrong."
The fact that you have a "conclusion" doesn't say whether or not you're "moral." It just says you've
made up your mind, one way or the other. So nothing shows that your "conclusion" is evaluatively "moral" at all; in fact, it may be in violation of "morality." But the Subjectivist is saved from all that, because he really doesn't believe in morality at all. He just borrows the language to make himself feel "good." But he can never "be" good, because there is no such thing as "good" for him to "be."
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:You are the one connecting God and morality.
Actually, logic is the one doing it. I'm just pointing it out.
You are saying there is a logical connection, but you are far from pointing one out. Please feel free to attempt it.
I've done so repeatedly. Here, I've offered empirical evidences, mathematical evidences, rational evidences, inductive arguments...and even moral evidences. So let's revert to the latter, since it's topical here.
No God, no morality. If you think otherwise, just show what I asked you to show: that you can justify
one moral precept. Just
one. Any
one, with no reference to objectivity.
The floor is yours.
And if you can't, then it's clear your use of the word "moral" has no content. It communicates zero moral information.