Is morality objective or subjective?

[RCSaunders]

So, now that THEE ANSWER to the question; 'Is morality objective or subjective?' has finally been REVEALED, and thus RESOLVED, can 'we' FINALLY move along?

Or, are 'you', adult human beings, going to keep "discussing" [fighting OVER] this ALREADY RESOLVED question for another few more thousand years?

That APE thinking that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, had, in those days when this was being written, REALLY SLOWED 'evolution' DOWN, (to a 'snail's pace', as some would say), and PREVENTED thee ACTUAL Truth from being REVEALED and becoming far more readily ACCESSIBLE and AVAILABLE to the Truly OPEN ones, that is; CHILDREN.

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

[Age]

So, now that THEE ANSWER to the question; 'Is morality objective or subjective?' has finally been REVEALED, and thus RESOLVED, can 'we' FINALLY move along?

Or, are 'you', adult human beings, going to keep "discussing" [fighting OVER] this ALREADY RESOLVED question for another few more thousand years?

That APE thinking that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, had, in those days when this was being written, REALLY SLOWED 'evolution' DOWN, (to a 'snail's pace', as some would say), and PREVENTED thee ACTUAL Truth from being REVEALED and becoming far more readily ACCESSIBLE and AVAILABLE to the Truly OPEN ones, that is; CHILDREN.

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

SEE, HERE, is ANOTHER example of INSTEAD of CHALLENGING and/or QUESTIONING, this one just ASSUMES, and/or BELIEVES, it ALREADY KNOWS what 'the truth' IS.

Also, did you mean 'A hundred and fifty five PAGES', instead?

And, what 'morality' is, so-called 'supposed' to be, I have ALREADY 'identified'. But you MUST OF OBVIOUSLY MISSED this part.

Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.

[Peter Holmes]

So, now that THEE ANSWER to the question; 'Is morality objective or subjective?' has finally been REVEALED, and thus RESOLVED, can 'we' FINALLY move along?

Or, are 'you', adult human beings, going to keep "discussing" [fighting OVER] this ALREADY RESOLVED question for another few more thousand years?

That APE thinking that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, had, in those days when this was being written, REALLY SLOWED 'evolution' DOWN, (to a 'snail's pace', as some would say), and PREVENTED thee ACTUAL Truth from being REVEALED and becoming far more readily ACCESSIBLE and AVAILABLE to the Truly OPEN ones, that is; CHILDREN.

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

SEE, HERE, is ANOTHER example of INSTEAD of CHALLENGING and/or QUESTIONING, this one just ASSUMES, and/or BELIEVES, it ALREADY KNOWS what 'the truth' IS.

Also, did you mean 'A hundred and fifty five PAGES', instead?

And, what 'morality' is, so-called 'supposed' to be, I have ALREADY 'identified'. But you MUST OF OBVIOUSLY MISSED this part.

Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.

Three claims:

1 We must all be open to being challenged and questioned.

2 I've answered the OP question: morality is objective and subjective.

3 I've revealed the truth, so you fools must be closed-minded.

QED

[Age]

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

SEE, HERE, is ANOTHER example of INSTEAD of CHALLENGING and/or QUESTIONING, this one just ASSUMES, and/or BELIEVES, it ALREADY KNOWS what 'the truth' IS.

Also, did you mean 'A hundred and fifty five PAGES', instead?

And, what 'morality' is, so-called 'supposed' to be, I have ALREADY 'identified'. But you MUST OF OBVIOUSLY MISSED this part.

Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.

Three claims:

1 We must all be open to being challenged and questioned.

2 I've answered the OP question: morality is objective and subjective.

3 I've revealed the truth, so you fools must be closed-minded.

QED

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'you' have proved here "peter holmes"?

And, WHO do those three claims belong to, EXACTLY?

Your 1 and 3 I NEVER claimed.

Your 2 I have CLAIMED.

And, if ANY one disagrees that what people think or know are the Right and the Wrong 'things' in Life to do is NOT 'subjective' AND 'objective', and you would like to have a discussion, then let us proceed.

[Peter Holmes]

SEE, HERE, is ANOTHER example of INSTEAD of CHALLENGING and/or QUESTIONING, this one just ASSUMES, and/or BELIEVES, it ALREADY KNOWS what 'the truth' IS.

Also, did you mean 'A hundred and fifty five PAGES', instead?

And, what 'morality' is, so-called 'supposed' to be, I have ALREADY 'identified'. But you MUST OF OBVIOUSLY MISSED this part.

Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.

Three claims:

1 We must all be open to being challenged and questioned.

2 I've answered the OP question: morality is objective and subjective.

3 I've revealed the truth, so you fools must be closed-minded.

QED

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'you' have proved here "peter holmes"?

And, WHO do those three claims belong to, EXACTLY?

Your 1 and 3 I NEVER claimed.

Your 2 I have CLAIMED.

And, if ANY one disagrees that what people think or know are the Right and the Wrong 'things' in Life to do is NOT 'subjective' AND 'objective', and you would like to have a discussion, then let us proceed.

Here's what you just wrote:

'Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.'

Waste of time.

[Age]

Three claims:

1 We must all be open to being challenged and questioned.

2 I've answered the OP question: morality is objective and subjective.

3 I've revealed the truth, so you fools must be closed-minded.

QED

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'you' have proved here "peter holmes"?

And, WHO do those three claims belong to, EXACTLY?

Your 1 and 3 I NEVER claimed.

Your 2 I have CLAIMED.

And, if ANY one disagrees that what people think or know are the Right and the Wrong 'things' in Life to do is NOT 'subjective' AND 'objective', and you would like to have a discussion, then let us proceed.

Here's what you just wrote:

'Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.'

Waste of time.

OF COURSE 'this' is a so-called "waste of time" TO YOU.

'you' ALREADY BELIEVE 'you' KNOW what the Truth is here, correct?

WHEN one is ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, then what I have WRITTEN SO FAR, will ALSO be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD for what ALL-OF-IT Truly IS.

'you', "peter holmes", are STILL NOT YET ABLE TO.

And the REASONS for 'this' I have ALREADY PROVIDED, numerous times ALSO, by the way.

There is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW 'you' PROOF that 'morality' can be nor is 'objective', while you HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN the BELIEF that; "There are NO moral facts".

Just like there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF that 'God' could nor does exist, while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God does NOT exist". And, conversely while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God DOES exist", then there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF otherwise.

It does NOT matter one iota what a human being is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING is true, while they are HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING 'that' BELIEF there is absolutely NO 'thing' in the WHOLE of the Universe that could SHOW or PROOF otherwise to that human being.

So, 'you' are Right in that ANY 'thing' I SAY and WRITE to 'you' is JUST, "a waste of time", to 'you'.

But what I AM DOING and ACHIEVING here is PROVIDING the ACTUAL Truth of just how the Mind and the brain ACTUAL WORK, which is what MY INTENTION IS. So, 'this' HERE is NOT "a waste of time" AT ALL. As what is being ACHIEVED here is the VERY BEGINNING of the Truly Peaceful 'world' for EVERY one.

[Peter Holmes]

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'you' have proved here "peter holmes"?

And, WHO do those three claims belong to, EXACTLY?

Your 1 and 3 I NEVER claimed.

Your 2 I have CLAIMED.

And, if ANY one disagrees that what people think or know are the Right and the Wrong 'things' in Life to do is NOT 'subjective' AND 'objective', and you would like to have a discussion, then let us proceed.

Here's what you just wrote:

'Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.'

Waste of time.

OF COURSE 'this' is a so-called "waste of time" TO YOU.

'you' ALREADY BELIEVE 'you' KNOW what the Truth is here, correct?

WHEN one is ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, then what I have WRITTEN SO FAR, will ALSO be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD for what ALL-OF-IT Truly IS.

'you', "peter holmes", are STILL NOT YET ABLE TO.

And the REASONS for 'this' I have ALREADY PROVIDED, numerous times ALSO, by the way.

There is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW 'you' PROOF that 'morality' can be nor is 'objective', while you HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN the BELIEF that; "There are NO moral facts".

Just like there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF that 'God' could nor does exist, while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God does NOT exist". And, conversely while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God DOES exist", then there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF otherwise.

It does NOT matter one iota what a human being is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING is true, while they are HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING 'that' BELIEF there is absolutely NO 'thing' in the WHOLE of the Universe that could SHOW or PROOF otherwise to that human being.

So, 'you' are Right in that ANY 'thing' I SAY and WRITE to 'you' is JUST, "a waste of time", to 'you'.

But what I AM DOING and ACHIEVING here is PROVIDING the ACTUAL Truth of just how the Mind and the brain ACTUAL WORK, which is what MY INTENTION IS. So, 'this' HERE is NOT "a waste of time" AT ALL. As what is being ACHIEVED here is the VERY BEGINNING of the Truly Peaceful 'world' for EVERY one.

Claptrap.

If anything, including a god, exists, then evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence. If you have either, then produce the goods. To say this is impossible is to throw in the towel from the start. Nul point.

But the point is, if there are moral facts, then the existence of a god or any other agent is irrelevant. The claim 'this is good because some god (or anyone) says it is' has no place in a rational moral argument.

Btw, if you're a god-botherer, better to come clean. (It would certainly explain much of your mystical, coat-traiiing nonsense.)

[Age]

Here's what you just wrote:

'Furthermore, what has ALREADY been PROVED True, is HERE for EACH and EVERY one to LOOK AT and SEE. AND, 'morality' being 'objective' (AND 'subjective') HAS ALREADY been PROVED True, HERE. But, with ALL Truths some Truths just take much LONGER for some of 'you', human beings, to SEE, and RECOGNIZE.'

Waste of time.

OF COURSE 'this' is a so-called "waste of time" TO YOU.

'you' ALREADY BELIEVE 'you' KNOW what the Truth is here, correct?

WHEN one is ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, then what I have WRITTEN SO FAR, will ALSO be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD for what ALL-OF-IT Truly IS.

'you', "peter holmes", are STILL NOT YET ABLE TO.

And the REASONS for 'this' I have ALREADY PROVIDED, numerous times ALSO, by the way.

There is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW 'you' PROOF that 'morality' can be nor is 'objective', while you HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN the BELIEF that; "There are NO moral facts".

Just like there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF that 'God' could nor does exist, while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God does NOT exist". And, conversely while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God DOES exist", then there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF otherwise.

It does NOT matter one iota what a human being is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING is true, while they are HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING 'that' BELIEF there is absolutely NO 'thing' in the WHOLE of the Universe that could SHOW or PROOF otherwise to that human being.

So, 'you' are Right in that ANY 'thing' I SAY and WRITE to 'you' is JUST, "a waste of time", to 'you'.

But what I AM DOING and ACHIEVING here is PROVIDING the ACTUAL Truth of just how the Mind and the brain ACTUAL WORK, which is what MY INTENTION IS. So, 'this' HERE is NOT "a waste of time" AT ALL. As what is being ACHIEVED here is the VERY BEGINNING of the Truly Peaceful 'world' for EVERY one.

Claptrap.

If anything, including a god, exists, then evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence.

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

If you have either, then produce the goods. To say this is impossible is to throw in the towel from the start. Nul point.

If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?

But the point is, if there are moral facts, then the existence of a god or any other agent is irrelevant.

OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?

The claim 'this is good because some god (or anyone) says it is' has no place in a rational moral argument.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?

Btw, if you're a god-botherer, better to come clean. (It would certainly explain much of your mystical, coat-traiiing nonsense.)

I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

[Peter Holmes]

OF COURSE 'this' is a so-called "waste of time" TO YOU.

'you' ALREADY BELIEVE 'you' KNOW what the Truth is here, correct?

WHEN one is ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, then what I have WRITTEN SO FAR, will ALSO be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD for what ALL-OF-IT Truly IS.

'you', "peter holmes", are STILL NOT YET ABLE TO.

And the REASONS for 'this' I have ALREADY PROVIDED, numerous times ALSO, by the way.

There is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW 'you' PROOF that 'morality' can be nor is 'objective', while you HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN the BELIEF that; "There are NO moral facts".

Just like there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF that 'God' could nor does exist, while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God does NOT exist". And, conversely while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING the BELIEF that; "God DOES exist", then there is absolutely NO 'thing', including ANY WORDS, in the WHOLE Universe, that could SHOW PROOF otherwise.

It does NOT matter one iota what a human being is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING is true, while they are HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING 'that' BELIEF there is absolutely NO 'thing' in the WHOLE of the Universe that could SHOW or PROOF otherwise to that human being.

So, 'you' are Right in that ANY 'thing' I SAY and WRITE to 'you' is JUST, "a waste of time", to 'you'.

But what I AM DOING and ACHIEVING here is PROVIDING the ACTUAL Truth of just how the Mind and the brain ACTUAL WORK, which is what MY INTENTION IS. So, 'this' HERE is NOT "a waste of time" AT ALL. As what is being ACHIEVED here is the VERY BEGINNING of the Truly Peaceful 'world' for EVERY one.

Claptrap.

If anything, including a god, exists, then evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence.

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

If you have either, then produce the goods. To say this is impossible is to throw in the towel from the start. Nul point.

If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?

But the point is, if there are moral facts, then the existence of a god or any other agent is irrelevant.

OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?

The claim 'this is good because some god (or anyone) says it is' has no place in a rational moral argument.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?

Btw, if you're a god-botherer, better to come clean. (It would certainly explain much of your mystical, coat-traiiing nonsense.)

I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You claim there are moral facts. So the burden of proof for that claim is yours. And I don't think you've met that burden of proof. You just claim that you have. So do it here, now. Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion. Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

[RCSaunders]

Claptrap.

If anything, including a god, exists, then evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence.

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

If you have either, then produce the goods. To say this is impossible is to throw in the towel from the start. Nul point.

If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?

But the point is, if there are moral facts, then the existence of a god or any other agent is irrelevant.

OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?

The claim 'this is good because some god (or anyone) says it is' has no place in a rational moral argument.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?

Btw, if you're a god-botherer, better to come clean. (It would certainly explain much of your mystical, coat-traiiing nonsense.)

I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You claim there are moral facts. So the burden of proof for that claim is yours. And I don't think you've met that burden of proof. You just claim that you have. So do it here, now. Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion. Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

The problem is the word, "moral." No one has identified what moral refers to. What does the phrase, "moral fact," refer to?

The words, "right," and, "wrong," certainly can have factual meanings when they refer to objectives or purposes or goals. That which achieves or accomplishes the objective, purpose, or goal is right, and that which hinders or prevents achieving or accomplishing the goal or objective is wrong. If the word, "moral," is going to have a meaning, isn't it necessary to identify some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which a thing is "morally," right or wrong, and doesn't that objective, purpose or goal have to be truly objective, not some ideological floating abstraction, like, "the good of mankind," or, "the good of society."

[Peter Holmes]

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.



If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?


OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?



LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?


I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You claim there are moral facts. So the burden of proof for that claim is yours. And I don't think you've met that burden of proof. You just claim that you have. So do it here, now. Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion. Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

The problem is the word, "moral." No one has identified what moral refers to. What does the phrase, "moral fact," refer to?

The words, "right," and, "wrong," certainly can have factual meanings when they refer to objectives or purposes or goals. That which achieves or accomplishes the objective, purpose, or goal is right, and that which hinders or prevents achieving or accomplishing the goal or objective is wrong. If the word, "moral," is going to have a meaning, isn't it necessary to identify some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which a thing is "morally," right or wrong, and doesn't that objective, purpose or goal have to be truly objective, not some ideological floating abstraction, like, "the good of mankind," or, "the good of society."

Not sure, but maybe you're referring to the 'subjective goal/objective means' argument, which I think informs, for example, Sam Harris's approach. The argument is that morality can be objective, in the sense that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways to achieve it.

I think this is misleading, because goal-consistency is morally neutral. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y' says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of either the goal or the action. And moral objectivism is specifically the claim that both moral goals and the means to achieve them are, as it were, intrinsically right or wrong.

I don't understand what a 'truly objective' moral goal could be. Can you explain that, and how having one may establish moral objectivity? It seems to me that the choice of a moral goal must always be subjective - a matter of opinion.

Sorry if I've misconstrued your point.

[Age]

Claptrap.

If anything, including a god, exists, then evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence.

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

If you have either, then produce the goods. To say this is impossible is to throw in the towel from the start. Nul point.

If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?

But the point is, if there are moral facts, then the existence of a god or any other agent is irrelevant.

OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?

The claim 'this is good because some god (or anyone) says it is' has no place in a rational moral argument.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?

Btw, if you're a god-botherer, better to come clean. (It would certainly explain much of your mystical, coat-traiiing nonsense.)

I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant.

And, it is you who has CLAIMED, "There are NEVER EVER ANY moral facts, forever more".

Have you got ACTUAL PROOF for this?

If yes, then will you PROVIDE 'it'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Or, is that CLAIM just an OPINION of YOURS?

You claim there are moral facts.

Yes I HAVE.

So the burden of proof for that claim is yours.

If you say so.

Is the so-called 'burden of proof' for your claim, yours also?

Or, do 'things' change now?

And I don't think you've met that burden of proof.

And this is because, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, the process of how Truth, Facts, and 'objectivity' is reached is NOT being done here.

I have even asked you to provide a definition of the word 'objective', so that NO one could accuse me of being 'selective' in my explanations.

You just claim that you have.

And you just claim that you have ALSO.

So do it here, now.

LOL

TELL 'me' WHAT TO DO, and I will SHOW 'you' WHAT I WILL DO.

Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Are you REALLY this BLIND.

I have TOLD you that there is NOTHING that can be said that is NOT an 'opinion', because of what the WORDS ARE, that are used to EXPLAIN the the Universe, and the way It works.

Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

LOL

How about you PROVE that "There are absolutely NO moral facts WHATSOEVER forever more". After all this is YOUR CLAIM. So, WHERE IS your PROOF for this CLAIM?

Also, WHEN will you UNDERSTAND that how one SEES and USES 'words', that is; how one DEFINES a 'word', CHANGES absolutely ALL and EVERY 'meaning'.

So, how 'you' define and use the words 'moral facts' is NOT how "others" define and use those words, which LEAVES US IN THE POSITION of;

WHO is Right?

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE makes YOUR OWN 'views' (and thus YOUR OWN 'opinions') thee IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct ones?

So, "go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you".

[Skepdick]

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

Good grief. You are closer to the grave than to the vagina and you still don't understand that the notion of "identity", or the process of identification is entirely abstract.

Nobody has yet come to identify what identity IS!

The Mathematicians claim that identity is equivalent to equality, yet physicists disagree.

[Age]

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.



If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?


OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?



LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?


I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You claim there are moral facts. So the burden of proof for that claim is yours. And I don't think you've met that burden of proof. You just claim that you have. So do it here, now. Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion. Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

The problem is the word, "moral." No one has identified what moral refers to.

I HAVE.

What does the phrase, "moral fact," refer to?

To me, the word 'fact' means, or refers to, 'that' what is IRREFUTABLE.

And, because, to me, 'moral, refers to 'that' what is; concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

A 'moral fact', to me, would be 'that', which is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, and which is IRREFUTABLE.

Now, how to find 'that', which is IRREFUTABLE is done by finding and/or discovering 'that', which could be AGREED WITH, and ACCEPTED BY, EVERY one.

So, a right or wrong behavior, which could AGREED WITH, and ACCEPTED BY, EVERY one is what the words 'moral fact' refers to. Well to me anyway.

The words, "right," and, "wrong," certainly can have factual meanings when they refer to objectives or purposes or goals. That which achieves or accomplishes the objective, purpose, or goal is right, and that which hinders or prevents achieving or accomplishing the goal or objective is wrong.

This would WORK, or FIT IN, ALSO, with what I have to explain and say.

If the word, "moral," is going to have a meaning, isn't it necessary to identify some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which a thing is "morally," right or wrong, and doesn't that objective, purpose or goal have to be truly objective, not some ideological floating abstraction, like, "the good of mankind," or, "the good of society."

Would a Truly Peaceful and Harmonious 'world', with and for EVERY one, as One, be a 'truly objective' objective, purpose, or goal?

If no, then WHY NOT?

A Truly Peaceful and Harmonious 'world', is where EVERY one is just living together peacefully, in harmony, which just means living WITHOUT quarreling, bickering, 'arguing', fighting, and WITHOUT killing each other. That way of life and living just involves having a True and FULL understanding for EVERY one, and so there is Peace and Harmony with and for EVERY one. (Plus the other things).

Is that "some ideological floating abstraction", to you, or is it 'truly objective?

And, what do those two terms, EXACTLY, mean, or refer to, to you?

[Age]

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You claim there are moral facts. So the burden of proof for that claim is yours. And I don't think you've met that burden of proof. You just claim that you have. So do it here, now. Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion. Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

The problem is the word, "moral." No one has identified what moral refers to. What does the phrase, "moral fact," refer to?

The words, "right," and, "wrong," certainly can have factual meanings when they refer to objectives or purposes or goals. That which achieves or accomplishes the objective, purpose, or goal is right, and that which hinders or prevents achieving or accomplishing the goal or objective is wrong. If the word, "moral," is going to have a meaning, isn't it necessary to identify some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which a thing is "morally," right or wrong, and doesn't that objective, purpose or goal have to be truly objective, not some ideological floating abstraction, like, "the good of mankind," or, "the good of society."

Not sure, but maybe you're referring to the 'subjective goal/objective means' argument, which I think informs, for example, Sam Harris's approach. The argument is that morality can be objective, in the sense that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways to achieve it.

I think this is misleading, because goal-consistency is morally neutral. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y' says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of either the goal or the action. And moral objectivism is specifically the claim that both moral goals and the means to achieve them are, as it were, intrinsically right or wrong.

I don't understand what a 'truly objective' moral goal could be.

While you continue to BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' WHATSOEVER, FOREVER MORE", then you could NEVER understand what\ a 'truly objective' moral goal could be.

Can you explain that, and how having one may establish moral objectivity? It seems to me that the choice of a moral goal must always be subjective - a matter of opinion.

'Water is H20' is AN OPINION. When you can UNDERSTAND that, then you could UNDERSTAND what you say you can NOT here.

Sorry if I've misconstrued your point.