Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If God were to touch your life if you took the first step in faith, would you consider doing it? Or do you expect him to touch your life first?

I expect Him to touch my life first.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I expect Him to touch my life first.

I believe he will someday when the time is right.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am questioning those who believe there are no moral absolutes, obviously because if there aren't any it would mean everyone's view is equally valid. Even you agree that everyone's view can't be equally valid.

That's a bit like the argument that since there is no biggest number, all views on numerical "bigness" are equally valid.

Originally posted by Agerg
That's a bit like the argument that since there is no biggest number, all views on numerical "bigness" are equally valid.

Its actually more like saying there is no single correct answer to any mathematical problem, so everyone decides for themselves what the right answer is.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Its actually more like saying there is no single correct answer to any mathematical problem, so everyone decides for themselves what the right answer is.

You once said, of killing another person, that whether it is morally justifiable or not "would depend on the situation". This presumably means it would be something for you to decide for yourself. What "mathematical" analogy do you have for making such a decision and for facing an it would depend on the situation-type moral dilemma?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Its actually more like saying there is no single correct answer to any mathematical problem, so everyone decides for themselves what the right answer is.

According to you there is no moral absolute regarding the killing of children, nor in fact, killing per-se. How does a person decide if any particular "killing" situation they may find themselves in, is morally correct or not?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Its actually more like saying there is no single correct answer to any mathematical problem, so everyone decides for themselves what the right answer is.

Not really. It is demonstrably true that there exist mathematical problems for which there exists precisely one answer that is correct. No such demonstration can be offered regarding your so-called absolute morality.

Originally posted by FMF
You once said, of killing another person, that whether it is morally justifiable or not "would depend on the situation". This presumably means it would be something for you to decide for yourself. What "mathematical" analogy do you have for making such a decision and for facing an it would depend on the situation-type moral dilemma?

In a context of moral absolutes you could say 1+1 always equals 2 or 2+2 always equals 4. Moral relativism is like saying 1+1 is equal to whatever you want it to be and all answers are correct because there is no single correct answer.

Originally posted by Agerg
Not really. It is demonstrably true that there exist mathematical problems for which there exists precisely one answer that is correct. No such demonstration can be offered regarding your so-called absolute morality.

Torturing babies for fun is always wrong. If you disagree feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by divegeester
According to you there is no moral absolute regarding the killing of children, nor in fact, killing per-se. How does a person decide if any particular "killing" situation they may find themselves in, is morally correct or not?

Would you agree that it is always wrong for one human to kill another 'innocent' human child or another 'innocent' human being intentionally for that matter?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Torturing babies for fun is always wrong. If you disagree feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Thanks in advance.

It is always wrong from the perspective of those who aren't so abnormal as to enjoy the process of torturing babies (i.e yourself, I, and I'll hazard the guess everyone else on this forum). However, from the set of all perspectives of baby-torturers that exist / have existed / will exist, it remains to be demonstrated that there exists no such perspective where at the very least, this action isn't "wrong".

Moreover, this isn't a demonstration that there is an absolute morality, nor (if there exists a counter-example) is it a demonstration that there is at least one absolutely wrong thing to do.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is always wrong from the perspective of those who aren't so abnormal as to enjoy the process of torturing babies (i.e yourself, I, and I'll hazard the guess everyone else on this forum). However, from the set of all perspectives of baby-torturers that exist / have existed / will exist, it remains to be demonstrated that there exists no such perspective wher ...[text shortened]... counter-example) is it a demonstration that there is at least one absolutely wrong thing to do.

And I guess you will say that acts of Nazi Germany are not objectively wrong either, yeah? From your perspective, it is not always wrong for everyone to torture babies for fun? If someone believed it was ok you would be cool with it?

Im guessing you don't have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And I guess you will say that acts of Nazi Germany are not objectively wrong either, yeah?

Im guessing you don't have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

From *my perspective* they were wrong, and I feel confident to elevate my standard of morality above all those who think it isn't wrong - but I cannot say they were objectively wrong, since as per your final paragraph, I do indeed lack such an objective standard.

In this case, I guess might makes right (there are sufficiently many of us with an advanced sense of morality that we can comfortably talk about it as something that is wrong).

Not so long ago, god fearing folk such as yourself who obeyed some so-called objective morality had no problem with the enslavement of blacks, for example. Our collective morality is, from my perspective, improving - but that says nothing about objective morality.
Indeed I have no problem with eating chicken, or beef, or fish; some people out there would regard this as a morally wrong thing to do (since my act of taking meat from the food supply increases the pressure to kill more animals to meet demand).

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And I guess you will say that acts of Nazi Germany are not objectively wrong either, yeah? From your perspective, it is not always wrong for everyone to torture babies for fun? If someone believed it was ok you would be cool with it?

Im guessing you don't have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

From your perspective, it is not always wrong for everyone to torture babies for fun? If someone believed it was ok you would be cool with it?
Hmm, lemme check if that's what I either said or implied ...

* checking ...*
* still checking ... *
* checking a little bit more ...*

Nope! Seems I said the following:

"It is always wrong from the perspective of those who aren't so abnormal as to enjoy the process of torturing babies (i.e yourself, I, and I'll hazard the guess everyone else on this forum)"

Originally posted by Agerg
From *my perspective* they were wrong, and I feel confident to elevate my standard of morality above all those who think it isn't wrong - but I cannot say they were objectively wrong, since as per your final paragraph, I do indeed lack such an objective standard.

In this case, I guess might makes right (there are sufficiently many of us with an advanced sen ...[text shortened]... of taking meat from the food supply increases the pressure to kill more animals to meet demand).

1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?

2. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions and personal preferences?