Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you or don't you know what a premise is and what it is used for?

I asked you whether the supposed "laws of the universe" that you mention include or do not include the "objective moral standard" that you mention. Your answer would be interesting. In certain ways, I think your view does have a kind of coherence to it as long as you stick to your assertions and you are consistent, but - in what I think may have been your slightly strained efforts to land some tiny truculent blows on the last few pages - I believe you have dropped a clanger or two and done some damage to your cause.

Originally posted by @fmf
I asked you whether the supposed "laws of the universe" that you mention include or do not include the "objective moral standard" that you mention. Your answer would be interesting. In certain ways, I think your view does have a kind of coherence to it as long as you stick to your assertions and you are consistent, but - in what I think may have been your slig ...[text shortened]... last few pages - I believe you have dropped a clanger or two and done some damage to your cause.

Do you want me to quote my words to you where I answered this question or can you go back and find it for yourself?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you want me to quote my words to you where I answered this question or can you go back and find it for yourself?

Quote them if you don’t mind. It seems to me that you have got into a bit of a tangle in your somewhat gauche attempts to be contrary for contrary's sake. If it turns out you haven't, I will acknowledge that I have misunderstood whatever it is I might have misunderstood.

Originally posted by @fmf
Quote them if you don’t mind. It seems to me that you have got into a bit of a tangle in your somewhat gauche attempts to be contrary for contrary's sake. If it turns out you haven't, I will acknowledge that I have misunderstood whatever it is I might have misunderstood.

Top of the last page, "If an objective moral standard does exist it would be part of the laws of the universe just like gravity etc as far as I can see."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Top of the last page, "If an objective moral standard does exist it would be part of the laws of the universe just like gravity etc as far as I can see."

Then what was your reason for answering in the negative to my 4th post on the previous page?

Originally posted by @fmf
Then what was your reason for answering in the negative to my 4th post on the previous page?

I see you asked me two questions, I was responding to the first question only. I had already answered your second question with my post at the top of the page.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I see you asked me two questions, I was responding to the first question only. I had already answered your second question with my post at the top of the page.

So your stance now is that your belief that god exists, created the universe, and put moral laws in place that govern human conduct, is not related to another of your beliefs which is that there is an objective moral standard? This seems to be a new development.

Originally posted by @fmf
So your stance now is that your belief that god exists, created the universe, and put moral laws in place that govern human conduct, is not related to another of your beliefs which is that there is an objective moral standard? This seems to be a new development.

Whatever gave you that impression? You are certainly doing your best to misinterpret my stance. Seems you have a knack of twisting peoples words.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Whatever gave you that impression?

Your negative reply when I put it to you.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your negative reply when I put it to you.

My negative response was in reply to this question from you:

Are you seriously claiming that the following four assertions are NOT also your rationale for asserting that your god figure has set "an objective moral standard" for you?

I already told you a number of times what my four assertions were for.

Originally posted by @dj2becker

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My negative response was in reply to this question from you:

Are you seriously claiming that the following four assertions are NOT also your rationale for asserting that your god figure has set "an objective moral standard" for you?

I already told you a number of times what my four assertions were for.

You simply missed the word "also" then, is that it?

Originally posted by @fmf
Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]My negative response was in reply to this question from you:

Are you seriously claiming that the following four assertions are NOT also your rationale for asserting that your god figure has set "an objective moral standard" for you?

I already told you a number of times what my four assertions were for.

You simply missed the word "also" then, is that it?[/b]

No it is not ALSO the rationale. DIve's question asked if the universal moral standard also applied to God, so his question already assumed the existence of such a standard.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No it is not ALSO the rationale. DIve's question asked if the universal moral standard also applied to God, so his question already assumed the existence of such a standard.

I was talking to you about what I was putting to you. And yet you keep mentioning divegeester. I wasn't talking to him, and I wasn't talking to you about him.

Originally posted by @fmf
I was talking to you about what I was putting to you. And yet you keep mentioning divegeester. I wasn't talking to him, and I wasn't talking to you about him.

The post you were questioning me on was addressed to divegeester, and it was in response to a question he asked me. His question assumed the existence of a moral universal standard. So hence I assumed that also in my response to him.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The post you were questioning me on was addressed to divegeester, and it was in response to a question he asked me. His question assumed the existence of a moral universal standard. So hence I assumed that also in my response to him.

No. I was talking to you about your claims about "an objective morality". Couldn't you discern that? I wasn't interested in the way you try to go about portraying your torturer god notion as anything other than monstrous ~ or, indeed, the way divegeester seeks to rebut it.