Kurt,

You are a gentleman. Just admit that Christianity is good for the world. May not be your time yet. But Christianity is great for the masses.

Google first world countries. You will find that Christianity had an early influence there.
Of course, there are a few countries of Islam. But we all know that they are a medieval spin off of their daddy named Christianity.

We have proven that there is no such thing as objective truth.

Even if that were true, isn't that an objective truth then?

It's kind of like the Theory of Relativity. If it's proven true, then the Theory of Relativity is an objectively truth.

This is pigeons playing chess stuff. Objective morality doesn't exist. Morals are subjective, you'll never get passed is ought problems and euthyphro. That doesn't mean nothing objective or true exists.

Please substantiate your claim…. by demonstrating to the court who the real pigeons playing chess are by explaining which one of the Ten Commandments God did in fact mess up?

Otherwise, you can't submit this as evidence to the court.

Dear citizen,

We Christians invented the historical legal system that we have in the United States government, which is substantiated by English Common Law. ECL is substantiated by the use of scripture verse after scripture verse quoted.
Precept established upon precept.

And if you can't handle debate with Christians, who inherited the Hebrew Rabinnic Tradition, then by all means please keep demonstrating your ignorance in silence.

Mr. Jean-Paul Sartre needed repentance. So did Derrida and all of the others.

Not only is the legal system not dependent on Christianity for its form and function, there's a pretty reasonable argument that some of English Common Law traditions were derived from Islamic legal practices.

I already answered that. Go back and read. Also I haven't the faintest idea why you think it's relevant

Sapper Redux said:

---

Not only is the legal system not dependent on Christianity for its form and function, there's a pretty reasonable argument that some of English Common Law traditions were derived from Islamic legal practices.

---

Okay…and who is their daddy? For the Christian interprets all things that are true through the lenses of Scripture.

Romans 12:9 (ESV)

"Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good."

Aggrad08 said:

---

I already answered that. Go back and read. Also I haven't the faintest idea why you think it's relevant

---

No you really haven't. Please support the authority of your claim by explaining whether or not you are a philosophical materialist or not? Otherwise, you are an invertebrate without a spine for these discussions.

We want to know how you can justify speaking in immaterial transcendental truths and still hold to a philosophical materialism?

Secondly, so do that first, preferably. Then tell us that morality is all subjective or relative and yet continue to type objectively when you make such absurd objections and claims…I double dare you, counselor.

See the Law of Non-Contradiction that you just broke and continue to break.

By all means…Carry on, counselor.

"In logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. "

In other words, if all statements on morality are subjective or relative, then why don't you type that way when you basically trying to force your sense of morality upon us that we are supposedly the only ones who don't have objectivity.

"There is no such thing as moral objectivity."

That's an objective statement on morality that you are making?

The Greeks also supported that truth claims must be consistent. And your worldview is showing that it is inconsistent.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Not only is the legal system not dependent on Christianity for its form and function, there's a pretty reasonable argument that some of English Common Law traditions were derived from Islamic legal practices.

---

Okay…and who is their daddy? For the Christian interprets all things that are true through the lenses of Scripture.

Romans 12:9 (ESV)

"Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good."

---

Not everything has its origins in religion. Religion itself is influenced by culture and circumstance.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Not only is the legal system not dependent on Christianity for its form and function, there's a pretty reasonable argument that some of English Common Law traditions were derived from Islamic legal practices.

---

Okay…and who is their daddy? For the Christian interprets all things that are true through the lenses of Scripture.

Romans 12:9 (ESV)

"Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good."

---

Not everything has its origins in religion. Religion itself is influenced by culture and circumstance.

---

It does because God brought Abraham into communion before the law had been written down and before he was circumcised.

Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Aggrad08 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

In other words, if all statements on morality are subjective or relative, then why don't you type that way when you basically trying to force your sense of morality upon us that we are supposedly the only ones who don't have objectivity.

---

I'm going to skip the first post which is just boorish, and push to this one to hopefully spare you the continued self humiliation of the lawyer schtick

If we accept the logical conclusion that there is no objective means or measure by which to evaluate morality in a universal sense then yes all morality is subjective.

But just like an extraordinarily large number of things that are subjective we may argue our preferences. And since you have no objective morality of your own to offer why should I accept your moral assertions blindly?

Until you can get past the is-ought problem you've nothing to offer.

Quote:

---

"There is no such thing as moral objectivity."

That's an objective statement on morality that you are making?

---

You don't seem to understand the terms fully. The reason morality is subjective is there is no objective measure you can name. You perhaps will appeal to divine command theory but that itself leads to an arbitrary morality.

Identifying that a moral claim or all moral claims cannot cross this logical boundary isn't a question of morals, or to say right and wrong, it's a question of logic. Just as we can make many fact claims about actions of moral impact without being able to prove a moral good or bad.

You can objectively say John stole from Jane. You can't objectively say it was wrong. Or it should be punished, or this punishment is the just punishment.

But there is no contradiction whatsoever in identifying the foundation of your morals as fundamentally subjective.

---

I agree. Without the Scripture, all morality is subjective. You make my point for me. Thank you.

I see your point. John can steal from Jane because there are no Ten Commandment that they are obligated to obey.

Excellent contribution

This is what happens when you have an untethered culture.
It goes dark and confused very quickly.

We the people, from all of the Christian Traditions, are united together to take our State and United States back from the theft of the culture of death.

Jews and Muslims are free to join us in declaring that the common consensus is that the people of Texas believe in the divine and the afterlife.

You are weirdly obsessed with the Ten Commandments. I asked you before why those and not the 613 that include so many rules you don't follow? Why not the noahide laws?

And what on earth makes you think your particular scripture is objective? Christians don't even agree about exactly which books are scripture. You don't even get passed the easiest part in objectivity identifying scripture let alone the much much harder task of logically demonstrating that those instructions offer objective morality and objectivity interpreting that scripture once you've done that.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are weirdly obsessed with the Ten Commandments. I asked you before why those and not the 613 that include so many rules you don't follow? Why not the noahide laws?


And what on earth makes you think your particular scripture is objective? Christians don't even agree about exactly which books are scripture. You don't even get passed the easiest part in objectivity identifying scripture let alone the much much harder task of logically demonstrating that those instructions offer objective morality and objectivity interpreting that scripture once you've done that.

---

And the full 613 laws are to be discussed.

The law can be divided into three parts.

1. Moral Law
2. Ceremonial Law
3. Judicial Law

The Christian doesn't follow the Ceremonial Law, per the New Teatament, where parts of it are largely dismantled as types and shadows (Hebrews).

We've already done that thinking. And when it comes to law and government, we follow the moral law and judicial law in applying its general equity.

The Law of God is objective because they have stood the test of time as we grow in how to apply the law in culture.

I am obsessed with the law. The law is apart of the Gospel.
Your people appear to be obsessed with moral relativism.

Psalm 1:1-4

Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
3 He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.
4 The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

May the court please recognize that not one of the Ten Commandments have yet to be disputed.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

May the court please recognize that not one of the Ten Commandments have yet to be disputed.

---

Actually two of the Ten Commandments have been disputed as weak. You aren't reading. Further you haven't objectively identified what books/translations are scripture.

Much much much further you continue to not understanding the basic point that you must logically demonstrate and cannot simple assume scripture provides objective morality.

I'm entertaining this side show to demonstrate to you even these side show arguments aren't strong. But they actually have nothing to do with the fundamental problem of objective morality. The meat is the is ought problem.

The civil ceremonial moral distinctions argument doesn't hold water on several counts I'll get to that later. There are not three laws there is the LAW. It isn't parceled as you describe.

First you have to objectively identify scripture. Christians thus far haven't even done that within themselves

The first table of the law, 1-4, are about worship to God.

The second table of the law, 5-10, deal with the ethics of human relations. These are the main foundations of our legal system.

5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Which one of those do you contest?

Saying they are contested is one thing.

Which one of 5-10 do you contest?

And on what grounds should these not be taught in school.

Marxism is basically a covetousness nihilism.

Marxism only sees the belly of man and not the full human as Dostoyevsky taught me.

Without Christianity influencing culture and politics, you all are leading us into Marxism…whether you like it or not.

May the court also recognize that this counselor is still speaking in moral absolutes about his belief in subjective moralism.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

May the court also recognize that this counselor is still speaking in moral absolutes about his belief in subjective moralism.

---

First just stop, you are humiliating yourself with this schtick. And you seem unstable.

Second I already addressed your confusion about the objectivity of morals being a rational rather than moral argument.

You have a bad habit of not engaging with the arguments. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read and actually show you understand the argument then make a counter argument or accept the point.

If you are simple here to rant like a looney toon I'll leave you to it.

You are just ranting. I already named the individual commandments I found wanting. You aren't reading.

Go back and actually address the points I asked you to to show you can actually thoughtfully engage or ill simple leave you to rant to yourself

No sir. I am conveying a message.

"Unstable?"

You just pulled out the old character assassination (vituperative rhetorical exercise).

I'll try to respond to more later. I'm working.

aggrad08,

I'll respond to the rest of what you are arguing later.
I'm just trying to understand from where your authority of rationalism is.

I realized that you are using analytic philosophy.
Would you agree with this?

(Objectively true does not mean "analytically true": it does not mean: truth that follows simply from the application of the principle of non-contradiction. It does not mean "necessarily true", "absolutely true."

Rather, what it means is: true of that which exists independent from the subject who perceives or cognizes. Object and subject are correlative terms: it only makes sense to speak of objective truth if truth and knowledge are understood as a relation of subject and object. The concept of objective truth thus implies a turn towards subjectivism. Or indeed, what is objectively true is objectively true for the subject.

Is "there is objective truth" objectively true? Clearly not, since it is impossible for the relation between subject and object to itself become objectively knowable (true for) the subject. (This is why aesthetic judgment, for Kant, is the only thing that can really justify the hope that a rich and substantive objective knowledge of the world is possible)

Hence absolute idealism. Hence Hegel. The meaning of truth isn't "objective truth" (In the parlance of the Phenomenology of Spirit, consciousness), nor "subjective truth." Truth truths (I'll put it this way just to annoy analytic philosophers a bit) as the identity of the subject and object. For Hegel, moreover, this identity expresses itself through concepts, which is the native element of thought.

This is not to say that Hegel is right that he has the last word. But I would argue that if analytic philosophers speak of "objective truth," and conflate it with analytic truth or necessary truth or with the truth of mathematics they don't really know what they are talking about. They are not really post-Kantian and post-Idealist philosophers, taking their departure from Frege's critique of psychologism, but neo-Kantians. If they further claim that "objective truth" cannot be "objectively true," then they are rigorous disciples of Kant. They are willing to accept an ultimately opacity to philosophy. If they claim that "there is objective truth" can be "objectively true", however, they are deeply confused.)

Anonymous source

Moreover, I would also add that you should probably read the following that I had to struggle through, which also critiques the foundations of rationalism and the later developments of analytic philosophy of objectivity. Because analytic philosophy also doesn't seem to try to answer the central question, " What is is?"

Of course once you hold to Heidegger, you must be careful in your philosophical materialism because Heidegger was a Nazi.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/92307.Being_and_Time

I would also suggest that you read Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein was actually a classmate of Adolph Hitler among the Austrian elite.

Wittgenstein abhorred the Nazis and left to Great Britain. Wittgenstein studied under Bertrand Russell. He then critiqued Russell's rationalism and analytic philosophy in his PHD Thesis.

Wittgenstein argued that there was order in the universe concerning all things. He did so by discussing the relationship of objects and the journey of thought that A has to B in order to get to Q.

Which destroys your argument for subjective morality on the ground of rationalism.

You can find Wittgenstein's PHD thesis here.

https://www.academia.edu/8309856/Tractatus_Logico_Philosophicus_PhD_Thesis_of_Ludwig_Wittgenstein

If you are not a member in order to read the provided link above, then you may sign up for free. It's quick.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

aggrad08,

I'll respond to the rest of what you are arguing later.
I'm just trying to understand from where your authority of rationalism is.

I realized that you are using analytic philosophy.
Would you agree with this?

(Objectively true does not mean "analytically true": it does not mean: truth that follows simply from the application of the principle of non-contradiction. It does not mean "necessarily true", "absolutely true."

Rather, what it means is: true of that which exists independent from the subject who perceives or cognizes. Object and subject are correlative terms: it only makes sense to speak of objective truth if truth and knowledge are understood as a relation of subject and object. The concept of objective truth thus implies a turn towards subjectivism. Or indeed, what is objectively true is objectively true for the subject.

Is "there is objective truth" objectively true? Clearly not, since it is impossible for the relation between subject and object to itself become objectively knowable (true for) the subject. (This is why aesthetic judgment, for Kant, is the only thing that can really justify the hope that a rich and substantive objective knowledge of the world is possible)

Hence absolute idealism. Hence Hegel. The meaning of truth isn't "objective truth" (In the parlance of the Phenomenology of Spirit, consciousness), nor "subjective truth." Truth truths (I'll put it this way just to annoy analytic philosophers a bit) as the identity of the subject and object. For Hegel, moreover, this identity expresses itself through concepts, which is the native element of thought.

This is not to say that Hegel is right that he has the last word. But I would argue that if analytic philosophers speak of "objective truth," and conflate it with analytic truth or necessary truth or with the truth of mathematics they don't really know what they are talking about. They are not really post-Kantian and post-Idealist philosophers, taking their departure from Frege's critique of psychologism, but neo-Kantians. If they further claim that "objective truth" cannot be "objectively true," then they are rigorous disciples of Kant. They are willing to accept an ultimately opacity to philosophy. If they claim that "there is objective truth" can be "objectively true", however, they are deeply confused.)

Anonymous source

---

Dude, as a starting point, it's one thing to quote someone else in brief as a reference or to make a point. It's another to copy and paste another person's arguments wholesale.

The source isn't anonymous. It's a cut and paste of a Quora post written by Anothony Curtis Adler.

Analytic Philosophy: Is the statement, 'there is objective truth' objectively true? - Quora

Argue in your own words using your own understanding. Some of the other responses in there aren't too far from my own thoughts.

I'm not going to waste too much time on this side show, as it truly has nothing to do with the thread, feel free to start another after actually addressing your fundamental problem of not being able to demonstrate objective morals.

In short I think you are asking a more complex question than you may realize and it gets needlessly nitpicky and into the limitations of human language and understanding and how our definitions work and the limitations of epistemology

Suffice to say I believe there are things about our universe which can be known or are true and are not dependent on our opinions, subjective values or desires that can be empirically and logically justified.

If you are curious about various theories of truth Standford does a great job with various philosophical theories-much better than a random Quora post

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In general I find arguments of various forms of "you must believe in god to believe in:" followed by logic, reason, evidence, anything but solipsism extremely poorly argued. Again, feel free to start another thread.

All I saw was a username. There wasn't a name associated that I saw. So how am I supposed to know? It's pretty much anonymous to me. It's just like you are.

And who is the one not stating their epistemological foundations here? Who here is the one not stating their philosophical worldview? Who here is a jellyfish without a spine that just wants to argue?

Just disregard it and not respond to it all you want. But would be awesome to see how your P plus Q = X thus all morality is subjective doesn't get past Wittgenstein. That is, the analytic philosophical argument that you are using doesn't get past Wittgenstein. It all contradicts and no philosopher has ground to stand upon rationally. Rationalism leads to irrationalism.

All you've been doing is posturing in the court of God's law.

If you make the claim that all-truth functions prove that all forms of morality are subjective based upon rationality, then your view that all morality is subjective is only subjective to you or to people who think like you on this topic. That's because you subjectively don't know.


I'm not going to prove God exists because it's the moral affects of sin upon the mind and the psychology of the mind that is the real issue.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Moreover, the real issue is that you are blind to the mystical things of God.

John 3:3 (ESV)

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

And if you claim that this is all a circular argument, then look in the mirror oh mortal man. One day you will die. And I guess all the bad things that happen in the world are well, "**** happens," right? There is no final justice to your group.

And your worldview has no final justice to put on the minds of men to help restrain evil by means of its common grace.

Hebrews 12:8 (KJV)

"But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye *******s, and not sons."

Oops. See how language works. Filtered the Bible.
You are currently someone without a Father in heaven.

Repent and believe.

The original meaning of this text applied to Israel. But we being the first fruits have this blessing upon any nation state that confesses Christ is King.

2 Chronicles 7:14 (ESV)

14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Biggest enemy currently is a transnational group that controls many items, one of which is the extraterrestrial reality cover-up.