A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Fil Albuquerque,

You remind me of Josh McDowell, a religious apologist just like yourself (although he is an Evangelical Christian).

Mr. McDowell claims that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that there is a Creator, since there is, he claims, no way for a ordered flower to grow out of disordered dirt. Of course he claims evolution is completely disallowed by the 2nd law.

Of course he is just as wrong as you are, at least scientifically.

Maybe that is the benefit of being religious, with a little faith, things mean whatever you want them to mean, without any need to prove them mathematically or test them objectively.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You remind me of Josh McDowell, a religious apologist just like yourself (although he is an Evangelical Christian).

What religion are you accusing me of defending exactly?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I understand the argument that something has more the 0 chance of getting organized given sufficient time is in place...second I am not religious, I at best, have an Einstein like, very abstract conception of "God"...you make a poor effort for an argument pal ! Try again !

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt,

You obviously have a faith in something greater than yourself, something you can't see or prove, but something that controls your behavior and informs how you live your life.

You don't have to believe in a God to be religious. You just have to have faith in something that informs your view of right and wrong.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

That ought to be your most tragic post yet ! Mr. Green

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You obviously have a faith in something greater than yourself, something you can't see or prove, but something that controls your behavior and informs how you live your life.

Jeez Max when you put it that way it almost sounds like you are describing love.
From a purely medical standpoint... at the very least... I hope that you love yourself.
I'll leave it at that.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Hes got to be the first solipsist physicist I ever saw... Laughing

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

@Frank Apisa,
There you go with that old cheap trick Frank...lack of absolute certainty is not a sufficient good argument...reasonably, having good reason, or "hints" that point to a explicative Universal Moral system are good enough to present our current understanding and make it public...I am sure you know this so I don't get that kind of nihilist approach you have to this and similar matters, it is certainly not constructive nor it leads nowhere.

If you think you can get to a "moral absolute" by just getting close, Fil...I guess you will prevail in any debate in which you engage...unless, of course, there is someone there who will laugh at you for such a tactic.

There is such a person here.

Laughing

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

yea franckly he is a douchbag

when absolute is bc of infinite superiority being existing then morality could b pointed clearly and only on absolute reality floor

the whole issue of evil is the will to invent smthg so the will to exist without else existence recognition first

when existence is objectively true then at least it is sure that anyone must admit else existence fact and rights before seekin to invent anything in relative terms

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Glad you woke up in the laughing mood Frank !
By the way an argument for a Moral Absolute has nothing to do with an argument for certainty...keep in your good spirits cowboy ! Wink

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5278302)
Glad you woke up in the laughing mood Frank !

Thanks.

Quote:

By the way an argument for a Moral Absolute has nothing to do with an argument for certainty...

I'll stand by my last remarks on this issue.

Quote:

...keep in your good spirits cowboy !

Always. I enjoy life.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

u cant escape certainty moron u should not only being greatful that certainty exist as the only justification of relative wills, but u r forced to shut up each time u want to say smthg since certainty must always come first to justify urself, so in no way u could ever say smthg other then relative while certainty existence is also free, but there is no way u could invent smthg and call it absolute just to fake respectin certainty

absolute is only to certainty if u r so fond about morality then invent another word to generalize ur moron theories, not absolute

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'll stand by my last remarks on this issue.

That's all Frank ever has to stand on, which is the main reason he hasn't a leg to stand on.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

That's all Frank ever has to stand on, which is the main reason he hasn't a leg to stand on.

JTT...I have two legs upon which to stand...or if you must, I got legs two stand on to.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have two legs upon which to stand...or if you must, I got legs two stand on to.

Please, please, more from the grammar wizard!!

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5278587)
Quote:
I have two legs upon which to stand...or if you must, I got legs two stand on to.

Please, please, more from the grammar wizard!!

Is the capital "P" on the first "please" part of the natural flow of language...or is it prescriptive, JTT?

Anyway, in answer to your question: For you, here am i.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Is the capital "P" on the first "please" part of the natural flow of language...or is it prescriptive, JTT?

Another stunning example of how little you understand about the workings of language, Frank. It's made even worse because this was explained to you at least once before.

Frank: Look at me, look over here, the grammar dunce is here, it's me!!

1 Reply

@JTT,

I notice you did not answer the question.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I notice you did not answer the question.

That's because you aren't anywhere near the language genius that your teacher led you to believe you were.

... It's made even worse because this was explained to you at least once before..

<It's> refers to the vacuous question you posed.

Is the capital "P" on the first "please" part of the natural flow of language...or is it prescriptive, JTT?

Why should I have to keep explaining the simplest parts of language theory to you over and over again?

"[You] simply do not want to be confused with facts."

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know