• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Morality and Belief in God

Angel said:
The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct
The Study Guide​





At this point in the reasoning, the argument considers Mankind in relation to the universal objective mandate to survive, to preserve one's life, and the argument considers this relation in terms of the Basic Existential Question, Hamlet's Question, as we have euphemistically called it earlier in this thread: "to be or not to be?"

Man alone among animals puts this question to life, interrogates the basic mandate of all living things, and Man alone possesses the power, the will, and the freedom to oppose the basic mandate of life, to voluntarily override it. Man's question is a moral question.

In this moment of choice, the universal objective value of life becomes a moral value in a moral consideration by a moral agent.
Click to expand...

Man's question is not a moral question. There is no universal objective mandate to survive. There is a built in instinct for fight or flight when danger is encountered. There is also a built in instinct to avoid pain. Sometimes the solution to the pain in living is to cease living. We don't choose to be born. Procreating is a physical act and process, not a moral one. Choosing to die is not a moral choice either. No one asks to be born. Being born does not place a moral burden on a person to keep living no matter what happens.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Of course. The point isn’t to present that idea to you and claim it’s more sensible, just to make the point that those outside of Christian circles might see them as roughly equivalent.



Yes, the regression does need to end somewhere. And what was there prior (I know I’m injecting “time” here) needs to make logical sense. The Christian God is what works for you. I can’t make sense of that personally, but that’s just my mental process. I have had more than a few people try to “make it make sense” to me, but the explanations all required leaps of faith and/or involved appeals to emotion. I couldn’t make a leap of faith to get the faith, so to speak. I lacked the faith required. I also had too many questions about what the Bible says that I got no sensible (to me) answers for.



As before, I accept that. I would be interesting to see what would happen if you were raised in a non-Christian environment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I respect all that. I guess I've been able to make that "leap of faith"... plus, I've had experiences that I know were God's doing (I wouldn't know how to explain it and won't even begin to attempt haha) and yeah, it's interesting to think about "what if the circumstances were different" ... I still think I would have found God all the same, but who knows haha
 
devildavid said:
Man's question is not a moral question. There is no universal objective mandate to survive. There is a built in instinct for fight or flight when danger is encountered. There is also a built in instinct to avoid pain. Sometimes the solution to the pain in living is to cease living. We don't choose to be born. Procreating is a physical act and process, not a moral one. Choosing to die is not a moral choice either. No one asks to be born. Being born does not place a moral burden on a person to keep living no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

Nor is the survival instinct (that's where this drive originates, instinct) unique to humans.

However, it occurs to me that no other species has a history of sacrificing its fellow species members to a God.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Sorry if I missed it (likely) but the thread is too long to dig through.

What definition are you using for "agency" in 3) above?

TIA
Click to expand...

I dont know if we ever specified it or not... Angel might remember if we did... I'd say agency in our argument would be referring to a person being able to act on his/her own behalf... Angel is better with words than I am; maybe he'd have a better crafted way of saying it, but that's how I'd say it anyway...

Angel said:
...
Click to expand...
 
gfm7175 said:
I dont know if we ever specified it or not... Angel might remember if we did... I'd say agency in our argument would be referring to a person being able to act on his/her own behalf... Angel is better with words than I am; maybe he'd have a better crafted way of saying it, but that's how I'd say it anyway...
Click to expand...

That makes sense. It seemed to be used in a spot where "volition" would fit, but I want to be sure. Defining the definitions of the terms used in setting up a debate are at least as important as the rules of debate.
 
devildavid said:
Man's question is not a moral question. There is no universal objective mandate to survive. There is a built in instinct for fight or flight when danger is encountered. There is also a built in instinct to avoid pain. Sometimes the solution to the pain in living is to cease living. We don't choose to be born. Procreating is a physical act and process, not a moral one. Choosing to die is not a moral choice either. No one asks to be born. Being born does not place a moral burden on a person to keep living no matter what happens.
Click to expand...
Every sentence in this post is false or irrelevant or unsupported and either already answered and dispatched by the the argument from instinct at #300 or by the earlier exchanges between gfm and myself leading up to #300 or by The Study Guide which you quote perfunctorily in order that you might post from the hip these irrelevancies and falsehoods.
If your post were sincere, I would have replied to it on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but as it is unresponsive autopilot atheistic materialism in contrarian mode, I'll leave it at this.
 
Quag said:
What is the universal objective value of life?
Click to expand...
Your question is answered in the hundred unread words of the post you quote, in a hundred unread posts leading up to the post you quote, and in the very question you ask -- "the universal objective value of life" is the universal objective value of life. You're not reading the phrase right, or carefully, or at all I dare say. Would you ask, regarding the sentence "The universal human response of love becomes an aesthetic response in an aesthetic consideration by an aesthete"-- would you ask what the "the universal human response of love" is? Would it even be sensible to ask "What is the universal human response of love?" Of course not. Not if you read the phrase correctly. If you read the phrase correctly, you understand that love is the universal human response, that "the universal human response" is in apposition to "love" here, that "love" identifies "the universal human response."

Now, if you've read this reply carefully and with understanding, you should see that your question answers itself. And if you see this, then you can answer your own question for us and show your bona fides: Quag, what is the universal objective value of life?
 
Angel said:
Your question is answered in the hundred unread words of the post you quote, in a hundred unread posts leading up to the post you quote, and in the very question you ask -- "the universal objective value of life" is the universal objective value of life.
Click to expand...

So just a meanignless phrase




You're not reading the phrase right, or carefully, or at all I dare say. Would you ask, regarding the sentence "The universal human response of love becomes an aesthetic response in an aesthetic consideration by an aesthete"-- would you ask what the "the universal human response of love" is?
Click to expand...
Yes I would
Would it even be sensible to ask "What is the universal human response of love?" Of course not.
Click to expand...

Of course it would be. the phrase could mean virtually anything you want it to mean. Since you brought it up what is it?
Not if you read the phrase correctly. If you read the phrase correctly, you understand that love is the universal human response, that "the universal human response" is in apposition to "love" here, that "love" identifies "the universal human response."
Click to expand...
So just meaningless drivel then?
Ok

Now, if you've read this reply carefully and with understanding, you should see that your question answers itself. And if you see this, then you can answer your own question for us and show your bona fides: Quag, what is the universal objective value of life?
Click to expand...

All I got from this post is that you will not (almost certainly cannot) define what you mean by universal objective value of life
 
Quag said:
All I got from this post is that you will not (almost certainly cannot) define what you mean by universal objective value of life
Click to expand...
I expected the type of answer he gave, and he even mentioned it again in his response to you, which went unnoticed, because it's been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread, and within the argument itself at post #300.

See #8 or #9 of the argument on post #300 and therein lies the answer to your question, if it yet remains camouflaged within the question itself...
 
Quag said:
So just a meanignless phrase
...
Of course it would be. the phrase could mean virtually anything you want it to mean. Since you brought it up what is it?

So just meaningless drivel then?

All I got from this post is that you will not (almost certainly cannot) define what you mean by universal objective value of life
Click to expand...
Life is a natural good -- according to science the natural good -- universal and objective.
The gfm7175-Angel argument from instinct takes off from that premise.
The gfm7175-Angel argument argues from natural good to moral good by way of Man's Moral Agency.


Namaste
 
Angel said:
Life is a natural good -- according to science
Click to expand...
But that's a subjective word, so it MUST convey a subjective evaluation... never mind the fact that it could also convey an objective evaluation... backed by science... ;)
 
Angel said:
Every sentence in this post is false or irrelevant or unsupported and either already answered and dispatched by the the argument from instinct at #300 or by the earlier exchanges between gfm and myself leading up to #300 or by The Study Guide which you quote perfunctorily in order that you might post from the hip these irrelevancies and falsehoods.
If your post were sincere, I would have replied to it on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but as it is unresponsive autopilot atheistic materialism in contrarian mode, I'll leave it at this.
Click to expand...

Nothing in my post was dispatched by any failed argument. You don' t understand what instinct is and how it works.

It is the height of irony that you accuse me of insincerity.
 
Angel said:
Life is a natural good -- according to science the natural good -- universal and objective.
The gfm7175-Angel argument from instinct takes off from that premise.
The gfm7175-Angel argument argues from natural good to moral good by way of Man's Moral Agency.


Namaste
Click to expand...

Science makes no judgement on the value of life.
 
Angel said:
Life is a natural good -- according to science the natural good -- universal and objective.
The gfm7175-Angel argument from instinct takes off from that premise.
The gfm7175-Angel argument argues from natural good to moral good by way of Man's Moral Agency.


Namaste
Click to expand...

What is a natural good and where does science make this claim?
You keep making up terms you wont/cant define then claim they prove your right
 
gfm7175 said:
I expected the type of answer he gave, and he even mentioned it again in his response to you, which went unnoticed, because it's been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread, and within the argument itself at post #300.

See #8 or #9 of the argument on post #300 and therein lies the answer to your question, if it yet remains camouflaged within the question itself...
Click to expand...

So the desire to stay alive is the universal objective life value?
Is that your claim?
I want to be sure because Angel has a habit of being intentionally ambiguous about these things.
 
gfm7175 said:
But that's a subjective word, so it MUST convey a subjective evaluation... never mind the fact that it could also convey an objective evaluation... backed by science... ;)
Click to expand...

Umm yes it is a subjective word
can you show where science uses it objectively?
 
devildavid said:
Nothing in my post was dispatched by any failed argument. You don' t understand what instinct is and how it works.

It is the height of irony that you accuse me of insincerity.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Science makes no judgement on the value of life.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
What is a natural good and where does science make this claim?
You keep making up terms you wont/cant define then claim they prove your right
Click to expand...

Quag said:
So the desire to stay alive is the universal objective life value?
Is that your claim?
I want to be sure because Angel has a habit of being intentionally ambiguous about these things.
Click to expand...
You guys are 30 pages behind in your reading. All of these late cavils of yours were answered 30 pages ago.
That you don't like the conclusion of The gfm7175-Angel argument from instinct, its premises have been well-established and the shortcomings of interlocutors whether in reading and keeping up or in reading and understanding the argument is no counterargument.

Please be advised that this argument for objective morality has logical ramifications that you will no doubt like even less. Forewarned is forearmed.


Namaste
 
Quag said:
Umm yes it is a subjective word
can you show where science uses it objectively?
Click to expand...
There's no such animal in the kingdom of linguistics. Words are characterized by their use. One of the many posts you ignored pointed this out to you earlier. Repeating an error does not change its nature.
 
Quag said:
So the desire to stay alive is the universal objective life value?
Is that your claim?
I want to be sure because Angel has a habit of being intentionally ambiguous about these things.
Click to expand...

Trying to get Angel to be specific is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.
 
zyzygy said:
Trying to get Angel to be specific is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.
Click to expand...
Had you read any of this thread besides your own posts, you'd know just how specific this argument is.
Indeed, you unwittingly provide the starting-pont of the argument yourself, here:
zyzygy said:
We are programmed by DNA to spread our genes around.
Click to expand...
Of course, you are oblivious to the fact that this is the starting-pont of the argument. You think you're zinging.
 
Angel said:
You guys are 30 pages behind in your reading. All of these late cavils of yours were answered 30 pages ago.
Click to expand...
I asked about a specific term that wasn't used in post #300 so how could my question have been answered?

That you don't like the conclusion of The gfm7175-Angel argument from instinct, its premises have been well-established and the shortcomings of interlocutors whether in reading and keeping up or in reading and understanding the argument is no counterargument.
Click to expand...
I wanted to know what the term meant before I could agree or disagree to it or do you think it is logical to agree or disagree with something whose meaning is uncelar to you?


Please be advised that this argument for objective morality has logical ramifications that you will no doubt like even less. Forewarned is forearmed.


Namaste
Click to expand...

Forewarned of what another failed argument on your part?
 
Angel said:
There's no such animal in the kingdom of linguistics. Words are characterized by their use. One of the many posts you ignored pointed this out to you earlier. Repeating an error does not change its nature.
Click to expand...
I havent ignored your posts you have failed to make any logical argument, you however continually ignore my arguments because you have no possible reply
Such as this post where you avoid my request to show where science uses the term "good" objectively

As to language you are the one who repeatedly makes up your own definitions and ignores the actual meaning of words
 
zyzygy said:
Trying to get Angel to be specific is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.
Click to expand...

I am fairly certain at this point he throws things out there hoping no one will challenge his false premises then when they are challenged he tries to just muddle things up enough to try and avoid dealing with his false premise.
He would find many friends in the CT section.
 
Quag said:
So the desire to stay alive is the universal objective life value?
Is that your claim?
I want to be sure because Angel has a habit of being intentionally ambiguous about these things.
Click to expand...

Self preservation, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom