What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

There's no contradiction in my argument. Morality (moral discourse) deals with what we call moral rightness and wrongness. And it's a fact - not merely my opinion - that what we call moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of individual or collective opinion.

If you think there are no such things as facts - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then by all means state that claim and support it with a sound argument. (Spoiler; then I'll explain why you're wrong.)

You are following the footsteps of the logical positivists [note Ayer] where due to their arrogance based on ignorance insisted that whatever of morality is nonsense and useless.

The influential wrongness of AJ Ayer
Ayer’s work tells us important things about the shortcomings of Anglophone philosophy
Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.

The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
Scientific claims made sense because there was some way of testing their truth. But how can we test, say, whether everything that exists is essentially immaterial or whether an action is morally right or wrong?
These claims appear to be meaningful because they come in the form of grammatically correct sentences with proper words. But since nothing could ever show them to be true or false they were, the Circle believed, meaningless.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

His real change of heart seemed to be a more gradual realisation that his youthful enthusiasm for logical analysis failed to touch on what matters most in life.
“It seems that I have spent my entire time trying to make life more rational and that it was all wasted effort,” he said in 1986.

Subsequent to the defunct logical positivists, the philosophers [you probably are following] made changes, but insufficient to make it more rational, thus your wasted effort in ignorance.

As far as moral facts are concerned I have justified them as matter-of-fact throughout this thread and others.

I don't think non-factual assertions - such as moral and aesthetic ones - are meaningless. The logical positivists were wrong about that. And their mistake came partly from a misreading of the Tractatus - which the later Wittgenstein recognised and painstakingly corrected.

When will you tire of tilting at this straw windmill?

Meanwhile, you haven't presented one sound argument for the existence of - grammatical chimera! - a moral fact. And we've shown you 'a thousand times' why such a monster can't exist.

[Age]

You're missing the logical point about entailment: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.

But yes, what we call morally right and wrong is a matter of individual or collective opinion.

Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

That's why morality isn't objective.

So, the reason WHY 'morality' is NOT objective is because that is "peter holmes' '' personal or individual opinion.

Hopefully, the CONTRADICTION can be CLEARLY SEEN here and is speaking for ITSELF now.

There's no contradiction in my argument.

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT, from your point of view. But, you are basing your OWN point of view on what you ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND. Correct.

From "other's' views, which you are NOT privy to, YOUR CONTRADICTION here Is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

Morality (moral discourse) deals with what we call moral rightness and wrongness.

OBVIOUSLY.

And it's a fact - not merely my opinion - that what we call moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of individual or collective opinion.

AND, it is a Fact that this is just YOUR personal opinion and view. Which absolutely NO one could refute.

If you think there are no such things as facts - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then by all means state that claim and support it with a sound argument. (Spoiler: then I'll explain why you're wrong.)

Spoiler: I do NOT think any such thing. So, please INFORM us of the very reason WHY you would ASSUME such a thing as this here.

It is OBVIOUSLY a MOOT point.

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that you completely IGNORED my CLARIFYING QUESTION that I posed to you, which was and STILL IS;
Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

Some.might be saying that you IGNORED this QUESTION because if you were to answer it Honestly, then you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here. Which might also explain WHY you DEFLECTED with some utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

[Peter Holmes]

Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?


So, the reason WHY 'morality' is NOT objective is because that is "peter holmes' '' personal or individual opinion.

Hopefully, the CONTRADICTION can be CLEARLY SEEN here and is speaking for ITSELF now.

There's no contradiction in my argument.

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT, from your point of view. But, you are basing your OWN point of view on what you ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND. Correct.

From "other's' views, which you are NOT privy to, YOUR CONTRADICTION here Is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

Morality (moral discourse) deals with what we call moral rightness and wrongness.

OBVIOUSLY.

And it's a fact - not merely my opinion - that what we call moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of individual or collective opinion.

AND, it is a Fact that this is just YOUR personal opinion and view. Which absolutely NO one could refute.

If you think there are no such things as facts - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then by all means state that claim and support it with a sound argument. (Spoiler: then I'll explain why you're wrong.)

Spoiler: I do NOT think any such thing. So, please INFORM us of the very reason WHY you would ASSUME such a thing as this here.

It is OBVIOUSLY a MOOT point.

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that you completely IGNORED my CLARIFYING QUESTION that I posed to you, which was and STILL IS;
Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

Some.might be saying that you IGNORED this QUESTION because if you were to answer it Honestly, then you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here. Which might also explain WHY you DEFLECTED with some utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

Let me spell out my answer to your question. No, there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion. To put it another way: to say something is morally right or wrong is always to express an opinion, and can never be to state a fact.

Now, if you disagree, and think there are such things as moral facts, please produce one. And then I'll show you, as usual, that what you call a moral fact is actually nothing more than the expression of a moral opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

On the other hand, if you don't think there are moral facts, then I agree and we can sign each other off. Hoorah.

[Sculptor]

There's no contradiction in my argument.

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT, from your point of view. But, you are basing your OWN point of view on what you ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND. Correct.

From "other's' views, which you are NOT privy to, YOUR CONTRADICTION here Is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

Morality (moral discourse) deals with what we call moral rightness and wrongness.

OBVIOUSLY.

And it's a fact - not merely my opinion - that what we call moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of individual or collective opinion.

AND, it is a Fact that this is just YOUR personal opinion and view. Which absolutely NO one could refute.

If you think there are no such things as facts - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then by all means state that claim and support it with a sound argument. (Spoiler: then I'll explain why you're wrong.)

Spoiler: I do NOT think any such thing. So, please INFORM us of the very reason WHY you would ASSUME such a thing as this here.

It is OBVIOUSLY a MOOT point.

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that you completely IGNORED my CLARIFYING QUESTION that I posed to you, which was and STILL IS;
Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

Some.might be saying that you IGNORED this QUESTION because if you were to answer it Honestly, then you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here. Which might also explain WHY you DEFLECTED with some utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

Let me spell out my answer to your question. No, there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion. To put it another way: to say something is morally right or wrong is always to express an opinion, and can never be to state a fact.

Now, if you disagree, and think there are such things as moral facts, please produce one. And then I'll show you, as usual, that what you call a moral fact is actually nothing more than the expression of a moral opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

On the other hand, if you don't think there are moral facts, then I agree and we can sign each other off. Hoorah.

I have been asking the moral objectivists this for ages.
I decided a long time ago that holding my breath waiting for an answer, was going to be fatal.

[Peter Holmes]

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT, from your point of view. But, you are basing your OWN point of view on what you ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND. Correct.

From "other's' views, which you are NOT privy to, YOUR CONTRADICTION here Is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.



OBVIOUSLY.



AND, it is a Fact that this is just YOUR personal opinion and view. Which absolutely NO one could refute.


Spoiler: I do NOT think any such thing. So, please INFORM us of the very reason WHY you would ASSUME such a thing as this here.

It is OBVIOUSLY a MOOT point.

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that you completely IGNORED my CLARIFYING QUESTION that I posed to you, which was and STILL IS;
Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

Some.might be saying that you IGNORED this QUESTION because if you were to answer it Honestly, then you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here. Which might also explain WHY you DEFLECTED with some utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

Let me spell out my answer to your question. No, there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion. To put it another way: to say something is morally right or wrong is always to express an opinion, and can never be to state a fact.

Now, if you disagree, and think there are such things as moral facts, please produce one. And then I'll show you, as usual, that what you call a moral fact is actually nothing more than the expression of a moral opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

On the other hand, if you don't think there are moral facts, then I agree and we can sign each other off. Hoorah.

I have been asking the moral objectivists this for ages.
I decided a long time ago that holding my breath waiting for an answer, was going to be fatal.

Yep. And because they can't produce an example of a moral fact, they have to tap-dance around what we count as a fact in the first place:

'Facts are really opinions, so any opinions - such as moral ones - can be facts.'

It's laughable. But the ridiculous length of this and related discussions testifies to the persistence of the delusion that there are moral facts.

[Age]

There's no contradiction in my argument.

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT, from your point of view. But, you are basing your OWN point of view on what you ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND. Correct.

From "other's' views, which you are NOT privy to, YOUR CONTRADICTION here Is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

Morality (moral discourse) deals with what we call moral rightness and wrongness.

OBVIOUSLY.

And it's a fact - not merely my opinion - that what we call moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of individual or collective opinion.

AND, it is a Fact that this is just YOUR personal opinion and view. Which absolutely NO one could refute.

If you think there are no such things as facts - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then by all means state that claim and support it with a sound argument. (Spoiler: then I'll explain why you're wrong.)

Spoiler: I do NOT think any such thing. So, please INFORM us of the very reason WHY you would ASSUME such a thing as this here.

It is OBVIOUSLY a MOOT point.

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that you completely IGNORED my CLARIFYING QUESTION that I posed to you, which was and STILL IS;
Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

Some.might be saying that you IGNORED this QUESTION because if you were to answer it Honestly, then you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here. Which might also explain WHY you DEFLECTED with some utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

Let me spell out my answer to your question. No, there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion.

So, to you there are absolutely NO objective facts, regarding absolutely ANY or EVERY thing, anyway. So, naturally, to you and your personal views and opinions, there obviously could NEVER be ANY objective moral facts EITHER.

SO, there is absolutely NOTHING to dispute here.

To put it another way: to say something is morally right or wrong is always to express an opinion, and can never be to state a fact.

You have MISSED the point.

Now, if you disagree, and think there are such things as moral facts, please produce one.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

And then I'll show you, as usual, that what you call a moral fact is actually nothing more than the expression of a moral opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

You MISSED the point, which I have ALREADY SHOWN here.

On the other hand, if you don't think there are moral facts, then I agree and we can sign each other off. Hoorah.

You speak as though YOUR personal OPINION here has some importance.

YOU have ALREADY ANSWERED my question that there are NO facts independent from personal or collective opinions, correct?

If no, then CORRECT this by ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED to you here.

[Peter Holmes]

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT, from your point of view. But, you are basing your OWN point of view on what you ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND. Correct.

From "other's' views, which you are NOT privy to, YOUR CONTRADICTION here Is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.



OBVIOUSLY.



AND, it is a Fact that this is just YOUR personal opinion and view. Which absolutely NO one could refute.


Spoiler: I do NOT think any such thing. So, please INFORM us of the very reason WHY you would ASSUME such a thing as this here.

It is OBVIOUSLY a MOOT point.

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that you completely IGNORED my CLARIFYING QUESTION that I posed to you, which was and STILL IS;
Is there ANY thing right or wrong that is NOT a matter of individual or collective opinion, to you?

If yes, then what is it or they?

Some.might be saying that you IGNORED this QUESTION because if you were to answer it Honestly, then you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here. Which might also explain WHY you DEFLECTED with some utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

Let me spell out my answer to your question. No, there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion.

So, to you there are absolutely NO objective facts, regarding absolutely ANY or EVERY thing, anyway. So, naturally, to you and your personal views and opinions, there obviously could NEVER be ANY objective moral facts EITHER.

No, don't be dense. I mean exactly what I say: there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion. I don't say there are no objective facts, regarding absolutely any or every thing. Because that would be a stupid thing to say. Try to read more carefully. Or just try to read.

SO, there is absolutely NOTHING to dispute here.

To put it another way: to say something is morally right or wrong is always to express an opinion, and can never be to state a fact.

You have MISSED the point.

Now, if you disagree, and think there are such things as moral facts, please produce one.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

Lazy bollocks. If you can demonstrate that something exists, I have no choice but to accept that it does exist.

And then I'll show you, as usual, that what you call a moral fact is actually nothing more than the expression of a moral opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

You MISSED the point, which I have ALREADY SHOWN here.

On the other hand, if you don't think there are moral facts, then I agree and we can sign each other off. Hoorah.

You speak as though YOUR personal OPINION here has some importance.

YOU have ALREADY ANSWERED my question that there are NO facts independent from personal or collective opinions, correct?

Wtf? We're talking about supposed MORAL FACTS - not facts in themselves. Wake up.

If no, then CORRECT this by ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED to you here.

Once again, I think this is a waste of time.

[Age]

Let me spell out my answer to your question. No, there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion.

So, to you there are absolutely NO objective facts, regarding absolutely ANY or EVERY thing, anyway. So, naturally, to you and your personal views and opinions, there obviously could NEVER be ANY objective moral facts EITHER.

No, don't be dense. I mean exactly what I say: there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion..

Well then you are NOT answering the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed to you.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET WORKED OUT THIS Fact?

And, you want to talk about me being 'dense'.

I don't say there are no objective facts, regarding absolutely any or every thing.

Were you NOT ABLE to read the ACTUAL WORDS that I USEDin my question to you?

Because that would be a stupid thing to say. Try to read more carefully. Or just try to read.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one reading this back can SEE just how funny your remarks have been here.

.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

Lazy bollocks. If you can demonstrate that something exists, I have no choice but to accept that it does exist.

It appears that it is you who REALLY can NOT read or can NOT SEE the ACTUAL WORDS here.

Tell me HOW one SHOWS that God exists to one who BELIEVES that God does NOT exist? Or vice-versa, tell me HOW one SHOWS that God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES God exists.

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist. So, UNTIL you EXPLAIN to us here HOW to do this, then your "lazy bollocks" and following comment does NOT logically follow.

You speak as though YOUR personal OPINION here has some importance.

YOU have ALREADY ANSWERED my question that there are NO facts independent from personal or collective opinions, correct?

Wtf? We're talking about supposed MORAL FACTS - not facts in themselves. Wake up.

LOL
LOL
LOL

GO BACK and READ THE ACTUAL WORDS that I USED n the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED TO YOU, and than let us SEE you say the SAME, AGAIN.

Once again, I think this is a waste of time.

A SAYING used by one who is NOT CAPABLE of correcting what HAS BEEN POINTED OUT to be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, or Inorrect.

[Peter Holmes]

So, to you there are absolutely NO objective facts, regarding absolutely ANY or EVERY thing, anyway. So, naturally, to you and your personal views and opinions, there obviously could NEVER be ANY objective moral facts EITHER.

No, don't be dense. I mean exactly what I say: there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion..

Well then you are NOT answering the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed to you.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET WORKED OUT THIS Fact?

And, you want to talk about me being 'dense'.

I don't say there are no objective facts, regarding absolutely any or every thing.

Were you NOT ABLE to read the ACTUAL WORDS that I USEDin my question to you?

Because that would be a stupid thing to say. Try to read more carefully. Or just try to read.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one reading this back can SEE just how funny your remarks have been here.

.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

Lazy bollocks. If you can demonstrate that something exists, I have no choice but to accept that it does exist.

It appears that it is you who REALLY can NOT read or can NOT SEE the ACTUAL WORDS here.

Tell me HOW one SHOWS that God exists to one who BELIEVES that God does NOT exist? Or vice-versa, tell me HOW one SHOWS that God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES God exists.

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist. So, UNTIL you EXPLAIN to us here HOW to do this, then your "lazy bollocks" and following comment does NOT logically follow.

You speak as though YOUR personal OPINION here has some importance.

YOU have ALREADY ANSWERED my question that there are NO facts independent from personal or collective opinions, correct?

Wtf? We're talking about supposed MORAL FACTS - not facts in themselves. Wake up.

LOL
LOL
LOL

GO BACK and READ THE ACTUAL WORDS that I USED n the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED TO YOU, and than let us SEE you say the SAME, AGAIN.

Once again, I think this is a waste of time.

A SAYING used by one who is NOT CAPABLE of correcting what HAS BEEN POINTED OUT to be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, or Inorrect.

Wafwot.

[Iwannaplato]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

Lazy bollocks. If you can demonstrate that something exists, I have no choice but to accept that it does exist.[/quote]

It appears that it is you who REALLY can NOT read or can NOT SEE the ACTUAL WORDS here.

Tell me HOW one SHOWS that God exists to one who BELIEVES that God does NOT exist? Or vice-versa, tell me HOW one SHOWS that God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES God exists.

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist. So, UNTIL you EXPLAIN to us here HOW to do this, then your "lazy bollocks" and following comment does NOT logically follow.
[/quote]
This is just cherry picking. Yes, generally it is very hard to believe in God if they don't. To produce God for them.
But there are all sorts of things one can convince people exist that they do not believe exist.
Look at the history of Rogue Waves. Scientists and others poopooed the existence of rogue waves. It made no sense to them,given the science that time. They did not think single very large waves could be possible. Large waves in a sequence due to storms, sure. But then technology improve and cameras on ships seemed to show exactly what the dismissed witnesses had claimed. Later satellite tech convinced the consensus. They exist and now they went about trying to find out why.

But even your cherry picked God example is not correct.

There have been people who have not believed in God, who challenged theists and were told by theists to engage long term in certain practices and this would lead to direct experience of God and those non-believers had experiences that led them to believe in God.

Now you may think that they must be incorrect. But that, in this case, is not the issue. You can in fact produce all sorts of things to change people's minds about the existence of things.

[Age]

No, don't be dense. I mean exactly what I say: there is nothing that is morally right or wrong independent from individual or collective opinion..

Well then you are NOT answering the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed to you.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET WORKED OUT THIS Fact?

And, you want to talk about me being 'dense'.

I don't say there are no objective facts, regarding absolutely any or every thing.

Were you NOT ABLE to read the ACTUAL WORDS that I USEDin my question to you?

Because that would be a stupid thing to say. Try to read more carefully. Or just try to read.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one reading this back can SEE just how funny your remarks have been here.

.
Lazy bollocks. If you can demonstrate that something exists, I have no choice but to accept that it does exist.

It appears that it is you who REALLY can NOT read or can NOT SEE the ACTUAL WORDS here.

Tell me HOW one SHOWS that God exists to one who BELIEVES that God does NOT exist? Or vice-versa, tell me HOW one SHOWS that God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES God exists.

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist. So, UNTIL you EXPLAIN to us here HOW to do this, then your "lazy bollocks" and following comment does NOT logically follow.

Wtf? We're talking about supposed MORAL FACTS - not facts in themselves. Wake up.

LOL
LOL
LOL

GO BACK and READ THE ACTUAL WORDS that I USED n the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED TO YOU, and than let us SEE you say the SAME, AGAIN.

Once again, I think this is a waste of time.

A SAYING used by one who is NOT CAPABLE of correcting what HAS BEEN POINTED OUT to be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, or Inorrect.

Wafwot.

That saves you responding to and ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I posed to you.

Because if you did Honestly, then you would end up CONTRADICTING "yourself".

[Peter Holmes]

Well then you are NOT answering the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed to you.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET WORKED OUT THIS Fact?

And, you want to talk about me being 'dense'.



Were you NOT ABLE to read the ACTUAL WORDS that I USEDin my question to you?



LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one reading this back can SEE just how funny your remarks have been here.



It appears that it is you who REALLY can NOT read or can NOT SEE the ACTUAL WORDS here.

Tell me HOW one SHOWS that God exists to one who BELIEVES that God does NOT exist? Or vice-versa, tell me HOW one SHOWS that God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES God exists.

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist. So, UNTIL you EXPLAIN to us here HOW to do this, then your "lazy bollocks" and following comment does NOT logically follow.



LOL
LOL
LOL

GO BACK and READ THE ACTUAL WORDS that I USED n the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED TO YOU, and than let us SEE you say the SAME, AGAIN.



A SAYING used by one who is NOT CAPABLE of correcting what HAS BEEN POINTED OUT to be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, or Inorrect.

Wafwot.

That saves you responding to and ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I posed to you.

Because if you did Honestly, then you would end up CONTRADICTING "yourself".

To repeat. Wafwot.

[Sculptor]

You speak as though YOUR personal OPINION here has some importance.

YOU have ALREADY ANSWERED my question that there are NO facts independent from personal or collective opinions, correct?

If no, then CORRECT this by ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED to you here.

Stop Dancing.

Just give us ONE example of an objective moral fact.

[Age]

Lazy bollocks. If you can demonstrate that something exists, I have no choice but to accept that it does exist.

It appears that it is you who REALLY can NOT read or can NOT SEE the ACTUAL WORDS here.

Tell me HOW one SHOWS that God exists to one who BELIEVES that God does NOT exist? Or vice-versa, tell me HOW one SHOWS that God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES God exists.

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist. So, UNTIL you EXPLAIN to us here HOW to do this, then your "lazy bollocks" and following comment does NOT logically follow.

This is just cherry picking. Yes, generally it is very hard to believe in God if they don't. To produce God for them.
But there are all sorts of things one can convince people exist that they do not believe exist.

If you read the ACTUAL WORDS I USED, you might SEE things in a different light.

Look at the history of Rogue Waves. Scientists and others poopooed the existence of rogue waves. It made no sense to them,given the science that time. They did not think single very large waves could be possible.

Your words here do NOT match the ones I USED. So, what you are saying here has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT.

I do NOT disagree with what you say here.

Large waves in a sequence due to storms, sure. But then technology improve and cameras on ships seemed to show exactly what the dismissed witnesses had claimed. Later satellite tech convinced the consensus. They exist and now they went about trying to find out why.

But even your cherry picked God example is not correct.

When you say, "cherry picked" here are you inferring that I should have used EVERY example instead?

There have been people who have not believed in God, who challenged theists and were told by theists to engage long term in certain practices and this would lead to direct experience of God and those non-believers had experiences that led them to believe in God.

So what? This does NOT relate to what I was SAYING, and MEANING.

Now you may think that they must be incorrect. But that, in this case, is not the issue.

I do NOT, so moot point.

You can in fact produce all sorts of things to change people's minds about the existence of things.

You have completely MISSED and MISUNDERSTOOD what was getting at.

[Age]

You speak as though YOUR personal OPINION here has some importance.

YOU have ALREADY ANSWERED my question that there are NO facts independent from personal or collective opinions, correct?

If no, then CORRECT this by ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED to you here.

Stop Dancing.

Just give us ONE example of an objective moral fact.

WHEN did I EVER say here that there was an objective moral fact?

And If one wants to WATCH and SEE one 'dancing', then just LOOK AT how much effort went into NOT ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I posed above here.