What could make morality objective?

[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.

By the way is it even POSSIBLE for there to be moral facts, to you?

[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.

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.

So you agree that morality is subjective and relative.

GREAT.
That is one convert.
Easy isn't it - when you decide to be honest.

[Age]

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.

So you agree that morality is subjective and relative.

GREAT.
That is one convert.
Easy isn't it - when you decide to be honest.

This is the SECOND ASSUMPTION you have made here,in just two posts to me.

Oh, and by the way, BOTH have been completely and utterly Wrong AND Incorrect.

[Atla]

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.

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood). If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you. Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you. While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere. Age's replies can eventually become pages long. Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

[Age]

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.

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood). If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you. Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you. While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere. Age's replies can eventually become pages long. Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

Is talking ABOUT someone, instead of CHALLENGING them DIRECTLY, the sign of maturity, or immaturity?

[Atla]

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.

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood). If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you. Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you. While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere. Age's replies can eventually become pages long. Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

Is talking ABOUT someone, instead of CHALLENGING them DIRECTLY, the sign of maturity, or immaturity?

Immaturity, you call others ignorant while being totally incapable of actually challenging them.

[Age]

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.

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood).

Pretty BIG CLAIM you made here, of which based on past experience you would FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support. But would you like to 'TRY' anyway?

If no, then WHY bring up some thing that you canNOT back up and support, especially in a philosophy forum?

If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you.

And, you one FAILS to CLARIFY their position or FAILS to back up and support their position, then they are PROVING just how USELESS, UNSOUND, or INVALID there position REALLY IS.

I am able to SHOW this just through challenging questioning.

Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you.

Answering ANY, or made up, questions is NOT the SAME as answering the ACTUAL QUESTIONS posed to you.

While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

Provide one example where I have EVER SAID, "Age knows everything".

Because you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THIS, and so WILL PROVE me Right, ONCE AGAIN, we now also have FURTHER PROOF of just how much you TWIST and DISTORT things here, in that head there, "atla".

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere.

LOL

Contrary to what you BELIEVE here "atla", I AM ACHIEVING EXACTLY what I set out to ACHIEVE here.

Age's replies can eventually become pages long.

Sometimes it takes a few more words to overcome the TWISTED and DISTORT STORIES being put forward here.

Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

If you SAY SO.

[Atla]

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.

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood).

Pretty BIG CLAIM you made here, of which based on past experience you would FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support. But would you like to 'TRY' anyway?

If no, then WHY bring up some thing that you canNOT back up and support, especially in a philosophy forum?

If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you.

And, you one FAILS to CLARIFY their position or FAILS to back up and support their position, then they are PROVING just how USELESS, UNSOUND, or INVALID there position REALLY IS.

I am able to SHOW this just through challenging questioning.

Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you.

Answering ANY, or made up, questions is NOT the SAME as answering the ACTUAL QUESTIONS posed to you.

While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

Provide one example where I have EVER SAID, "Age knows everything".

Because you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THIS, and so WILL PROVE me Right, ONCE AGAIN, we now also have FURTHER PROOF of just how much you TWIST and DISTORT things here, in that head there, "atla".

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere.

LOL

Contrary to what you BELIEVE here "atla", I AM ACHIEVING EXACTLY what I set out to ACHIEVE here.

Age's replies can eventually become pages long.

Sometimes it takes a few more words to overcome the TWISTED and DISTORT STORIES being put forward here.

Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

If you SAY SO.

The ship has sailed Age, you've already failed in past "debates". Your friends from the future will see it too.

[Age]

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood). If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you. Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you. While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere. Age's replies can eventually become pages long. Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

Is talking ABOUT someone, instead of CHALLENGING them DIRECTLY, the sign of maturity, or immaturity?

Immaturity, you call others ignorant while being totally incapable of actually challenging them.

ANOTHER CLAIM of YOURS here. Now, WHERE have I ever called "others" ignorant?

Your INABILITY to provide absolutely ANY thing reinforces the TWISTED and DISTORTED thinking, within that head.

AND if you STILL have NOT YET NOTICED I AM ACTUALLY CHALLENGING you HERE NOW, ONCE AGAIN.

That is; I AM CHALLENGING you to provide PROOF of the CLAIMS you have been making here.

So far you ARE FAILING ABSOLUTELY.

[Age]

You're new here, so I have to warn you, you just made a horrible mistake. You replied to Age with many sentences (none of which Age understood).

Pretty BIG CLAIM you made here, of which based on past experience you would FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support. But would you like to 'TRY' anyway?

If no, then WHY bring up some thing that you canNOT back up and support, especially in a philosophy forum?

If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.

As a general rule, if you write an N number of sentences, Age will throw back 2N questions at you.

And, you one FAILS to CLARIFY their position or FAILS to back up and support their position, then they are PROVING just how USELESS, UNSOUND, or INVALID there position REALLY IS.

I am able to SHOW this just through challenging questioning.

Then you answer those 2N questions, and he'll throw back 4N questions at you.

Answering ANY, or made up, questions is NOT the SAME as answering the ACTUAL QUESTIONS posed to you.

While also telling you that you understood nothing and that Age knows everything.

Provide one example where I have EVER SAID, "Age knows everything".

Because you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THIS, and so WILL PROVE me Right, ONCE AGAIN, we now also have FURTHER PROOF of just how much you TWIST and DISTORT things here, in that head there, "atla".

And so on. It grows exponentially and it NEVER STOPS and it never gets anywhere.

LOL

Contrary to what you BELIEVE here "atla", I AM ACHIEVING EXACTLY what I set out to ACHIEVE here.

Age's replies can eventually become pages long.

Sometimes it takes a few more words to overcome the TWISTED and DISTORT STORIES being put forward here.

Age is a chosen one, and somehow has infinite time to do this.

If you SAY SO.

The ship has sailed Age, you've already failed in past "debates". Your friends from the future will see it too.

LOL

I have TOLD you BEFORE that I DO NOT DO 'debates'.So, I can NEVER "fail" what I DO NOT DO.

You, however, FAIL to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, like you are SHOWING and PROVING, ONCE AGAIN, here now.

[Atla]

Is talking ABOUT someone, instead of CHALLENGING them DIRECTLY, the sign of maturity, or immaturity?

Immaturity, you call others ignorant while being totally incapable of actually challenging them.

ANOTHER CLAIM of YOURS here. Now, WHERE have I ever called "others" ignorant?

Your INABILITY to provide absolutely ANY thing reinforces the TWISTED and DISTORTED thinking, within that head.

AND if you STILL have NOT YET NOTICED I AM ACTUALLY CHALLENGING you HERE NOW, ONCE AGAIN.

That is; I AM CHALLENGING you to provide PROOF of the CLAIMS you have been making here.

So far you ARE FAILING ABSOLUTELY.

No Age, lying isn't the same as challening someone.

[Age]

Oh, and by the "atla", are you CAPABLE of PROVIDING ANY evidence AT ALL where I have, supposedly, FAILED in a 'debate'?

If you do NOT, then you WILL FAIL ANOTHER one of my CHALLENGES to you.

[Atla]

Pretty BIG CLAIM you made here, of which based on past experience you would FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support. But would you like to 'TRY' anyway?

If no, then WHY bring up some thing that you canNOT back up and support, especially in a philosophy forum?

If you thought Veritas was weird, wait till you get to know Age.


And, you one FAILS to CLARIFY their position or FAILS to back up and support their position, then they are PROVING just how USELESS, UNSOUND, or INVALID there position REALLY IS.

I am able to SHOW this just through challenging questioning.


Answering ANY, or made up, questions is NOT the SAME as answering the ACTUAL QUESTIONS posed to you.


Provide one example where I have EVER SAID, "Age knows everything".

Because you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THIS, and so WILL PROVE me Right, ONCE AGAIN, we now also have FURTHER PROOF of just how much you TWIST and DISTORT things here, in that head there, "atla".


LOL

Contrary to what you BELIEVE here "atla", I AM ACHIEVING EXACTLY what I set out to ACHIEVE here.



Sometimes it takes a few more words to overcome the TWISTED and DISTORT STORIES being put forward here.


If you SAY SO.

The ship has sailed Age, you've already failed in past "debates". Your friends from the future will see it too.

LOL

I have TOLD you BEFORE that I DO NOT DO 'debates'.So, I can NEVER "fail" what I DO NOT DO.

You, however, FAIL to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, like you are SHOWING and PROVING, ONCE AGAIN, here now.

Again, you being a pathological liar doesn't mean that I fail. That's not something you can understand.

[Age]

Immaturity, you call others ignorant while being totally incapable of actually challenging them.

ANOTHER CLAIM of YOURS here. Now, WHERE have I ever called "others" ignorant?

Your INABILITY to provide absolutely ANY thing reinforces the TWISTED and DISTORTED thinking, within that head.

AND if you STILL have NOT YET NOTICED I AM ACTUALLY CHALLENGING you HERE NOW, ONCE AGAIN.

That is; I AM CHALLENGING you to provide PROOF of the CLAIMS you have been making here.

So far you ARE FAILING ABSOLUTELY.

No Age, lying isn't the same as challening someone.

Here is ANOTHER CLAIM OF YOURS.NOW SHOW WHERE I HAVE SUPPOSEDLY LIED.

YOUR INABILITY TO DO SO PROVES YOUR FAILURE IN BEING CHALLENGES ONCE AGAIN.

[Age]

The ship has sailed Age, you've already failed in past "debates". Your friends from the future will see it too.

LOL

I have TOLD you BEFORE that I DO NOT DO 'debates'.So, I can NEVER "fail" what I DO NOT DO.

You, however, FAIL to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, like you are SHOWING and PROVING, ONCE AGAIN, here now.

Again, you being a pathological liar doesn't mean that I fail. That's not something you can understand.

Who is LYING here is being CLEARLY SEEN.