Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disproving Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality via the Copernican Principle and Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Helly View Post

    Sure, but what baseline value have we assigned to human life? It's not zero.
    It doesn't matter? lol. That's only relevant if you're comparing human lives to something else.

    Comment


      Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

      Already said I don’t agree that the universe has some sort of “moral code.”

      If you’re gonna believe that morality is entirely a subjective thing determined by society’s whims, go ahead.

      When you believe that what’s moral is entirely determined by the society’s sense of it, please don’t get morally pissy if society disagrees with you.

      ...Like your little moral crusade against the “Animal Holocaust.”
      But where do you think morality gets its objectivity? Is it hard-coded into our DNA? Did God write it into our souls? Did you just decide one day that it works out like that?
      Originally posted by Wade
      Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

      Comment


        Originally posted by Cid View Post
        Well, they're not. There are certain issues that arise within human rights that can be interpreted with morality. But human rights aren't a question of morality itself.
        So human rights exists irrespective of morals?

        That is an interesting take.

        Why do we consider human rights important Cid? Why do we want to implement them?

        And if it’s something like “Something something order in society something something human dignity” or something similarly moralist then explain why that is anything else but the exact sort of thing that you consider “wholly subjective”?
        As for Helly...

        You think human morals are subjective and therefore what’s right or wrong (morally) is, ultimately...society’s collective hot takes. If it’s even that and isn’t the “None of our takes are more morally right than anyone else’s” view of things.

        Guess what?

        That same exact society’s collective hot take is that veganism and animal rights are a shitty facebook meme, lol.

        I’ve already thrown in my bit for everything else you’ve talked about.
        Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 30th, 2019, 01:08 AM.

        Comment


          Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
          Why do we consider human rights important Cid?
          Because humans are intelligent enough to ask these questions, but apparently not intelligent enough to comprehend them.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Cid View Post

            It doesn't matter? lol. That's only relevant if you're comparing human lives to something else.
            It absolutely matters. Why would we think murder is wrong if human value were zero?


            Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

            So human rights exists irrespective of morals?

            That is an interesting take.

            Why do we consider human rights important Cid? Why do we want to implement them?

            And if it’s something like “Something something order in society something something human dignity” or something similarly moralist then explain why that is anything else but the exact sort of thing that you consider “wholly subjective”?
            As for Helly...

            You think human morals are subjective and therefore what’s right or wrong (morally) is, ultimately...society’s collective hot takes. If it’s even that and isn’t the “None of our takes are more morally right than anyone else’s” view of things.

            Guess what?

            That same exact society’s collective hot take is that veganism and animal rights are a shitty facebook meme, lol.

            I’ve already thrown in my bit for everything else you’ve talked about.
            RCA, the reason you think society shouldn't be the sole arbiter of morality is because of the hard lessons history has taught us about oppression towards marginalized groups. It's completely indicative of the time you're living in right now, post-slavery, post-Nazi Germany, post-Salem witch trials, etcetera. Obviously, majority opinion is a fallacious way of verifying whether or not something is coherent and logical, but that's not what's being discussed. People from past times had their justifications for why they acted as they did, and they did not face the inconsistencies in their reasoning until the majority opinion tipped differently and they all realized that these marginalized groups felt and hurt much in the same way as they did, and had desires to live out their lives.

            Society can be illogical and incorrect, but society's logical coherence and the subject of whether or not morality is subjective are two completely separate topics. Yes, most people in your country don't view eating meat as immoral, but their arguments for why the animal holocaust is okay and why the WWII genocide wasn't are completely nonsensical. And it will probably stay that way until long after the slaughterhouses are replaced by synthetic meats and everyone effectively becomes a vegan through capitalism, and they won't realize or admit that slaughterhouses were wrong until after the animal agriculture is over and done with. That's how it was many, many times during our history, unfortunately.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Cid View Post
              Death row is also a waste of tax payer money, if you're going to put someone to death, don't give them 20 years of appeals.

              But none of that is even the point. The point was that you can make an argument in favor of executing prisoners. You can even make a moral argument for it. But you can also make a moral argument against it. And both sides can have very good points. That's the reason execution is a very well known gray-area in our justice system. And it absolutely, without a doubt, proves that morality is subjective.
              And you can make an argument for being an anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, climate change denier, or Milli-genderer despite being objectively wrong. Similarly, infringing upon someone's right to exist for infringing upon someone's right to exist is kinda bullshit. Two wrongs don't make a right.

              Of course, to play Devil's advocate, I'd personally choose execution over life in prison in a heartbeat. "Give me freedom or give me death" are words to live (and die) by.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Helly View Post
                It absolutely matters. Why would we think murder is wrong if human value were zero?
                You ever heard of the "red herring fallacy"? It's something one person does in an argument that is meant to distract from the core argument with something that's seemingly related but actually isn't. That's what you're doing by attempting to make me apply an arbitrary value to a human life when it doesn't actually matter. If I put that value at 0, guess what? 0 is still equal to 0, mate. I'm talking apples to apples here, your arbitrary value is only relevant when you point out that one apple is green and the other is red.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                  And you can make an argument for being an anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, climate change denier,
                  An argument implies there's a point to be made from the start... So no, you really can't.

                  But really, go find the mother of one of these murdered children and tell her she doesn't have any argument for wanting the death penalty for her child's murderer. See how long it takes before you're also in a casket. lol
                  Last edited by Cid; November 30th, 2019, 01:44 AM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Cid View Post

                    You ever heard of the "red herring fallacy"? It's something one person does in an argument that is meant to distract from the core argument with something that's seemingly related but actually isn't. That's what you're doing by attempting to make me apply an arbitrary value to a human life when it doesn't actually matter. If I put that value at 0, guess what? 0 is still equal to 0, mate. I'm talking apples to apples here, your arbitrary value is only relevant when you point out that one apple is green and the other is red.
                    I don't think that fallacy applies here - we are still very much on the subject of moral value, I'm simply illustrating the point that we care about murder because we place value on human life. If we didn't, then nothing would be lost by murdering someone nor would any right be infinged upon since life has no value.

                    To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that human rights are based on the idea that all are equal. I'm just pointing out that said lives are not dictated as being equally worthless, and that to assign these rights to humans we have granted them moral consideration and thus moral value. Therefore, human rights are dependant upon moral value.
                    Last edited by Helly; November 30th, 2019, 01:57 AM.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Cid View Post

                      An argument implies there's a point to be made from the start... So no, you really can't.

                      But really, go find the mother of one of these murdered children and tell her she doesn't have any argument for wanting the death penalty for her child's murderer. See how long it takes before you're also in a casket. lol
                      Yeah, that explains why a significant portion of the Western world's (known for its rigorous academics) demographic make-up are ardent believers in those things, huh.

                      Uh, that's not what I said at all. Even your first sentence implies as much. But anyway, an argument made from pathos =/= an argument from logos. Not that even an argument from logos would be inherently moral, mind you.
                      Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; November 30th, 2019, 01:59 AM.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Cid View Post

                        Because humans are intelligent enough to ask these questions, but apparently not intelligent enough to comprehend them.
                        This is nice and all...

                        ...But this is not the actual individual reasons that brought people to talk about human rights, Cid...

                        Human rights and its related ideas developed as a result of peoples’ views too; whether they considered them something that existed and whatever they specifically considered a “right” (and why)...and who got them (see Nazis for some serious disagreements there).

                        According to you...that sort of human view component and its variances across history really matters for morality.

                        It is why you personally think that morality is subjective.

                        If it matters for moral considerations, it matters for human rights in the same exact way, and human rights would fall under the same sort of rules you’ve ascribed to morality (i.e, dependent on what the collective thinks of them)...yes, even if you consider the two different.
                        Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 30th, 2019, 02:04 AM.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Cid View Post
                          The hypothetical situation you latched on to was simply too clear-cut. Of course murder is bad. It's always been bad. It's not a question of morality, it's a question of human rights.

                          Muddy the question up a bit. Is it morally right to execute a mass-murderer?
                          But you said you thought it was okay that Baal worshipers justified human sacrifice, although you didn't justify it yourself. Don't you see this is a ridiculous position to take? Human sacrifice is murder, so if murder is wrong then Baal worshipers were wrong to commit human sacrifice.


                          Laws in the Universe don't change, so Morals in the Universe cannot change.


                          The Scientists, astronomers, have done surveys of the Universe, and have found that Physical Laws of the Universe have not changed so much as one part in a trillion in the entire 13.8 Billion years history of the Universe.

                          We absolutely know what Truth is, and we absolutely know that Truth never changes.

                          Oh yeah, one part in a Trillion is basically 8 or 9 Sigma certainty that the Copernican Principle is True. We only need 5 Sigma Certainty to consider it a "Scientific Discovery" so basically the Copernican Principle is a Scientific Law now, not an Axiom.
                          Last edited by Wade; November 30th, 2019, 07:29 AM.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                            But where do you think morality gets its objectivity? Is it hard-coded into our DNA? Did God write it into our souls? Did you just decide one day that it works out like that?
                            RussianCoffeeAddict
                            Originally posted by Wade
                            Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                              I only did that with Geogre once (o-n-c-e), and that was years ago to boot. Can barely manage two measly pages, if that, these days.

                              P.S. Fucking crackhead smh.



                              "Killing is bad, so we should kill killers, mmkay."

                              Brilliant.

                              Never mind that prison is supposedly rehabilitative, rather than strictly punitive.
                              "Murder" is the unlawful killing of an innocent person.

                              "Capital Punishment" is the lawful, Just killing of a convicted murderer, who deserves to die.

                              In the Context of Objective Morality, Murder is an unforgivable sin. No Objectively Moral God could forgive Murder just because the Murderer asks to be forgiven.

                              IN the Bible, in the story of the two thieves on the Cross, one thief is forgiven because he had done nothing worthy of physical death, much less Hell. The Other thief is NOT forgiven, because he was guilty of "Sedition", which was most likely rape or murder, which are unforgivable sins which come with a Death Penalty.

                              This concept is not new. There are forgivable sins which do not deserve a Death Penalty, and there are unforgivable sins which deserve a death penalty, and by implication Hell Fire.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                                Morality is not a matter of Human DNA. Morality would be the same for Alien Species as it is for Humans. For example, Murder among Aliens would be just as wrong as murder among Humans.

                                Morality is a fundamental Metaphysical Truth of Reality. It transcends all of space and time, but also things beyond space and time, hence "Metaphysical".

                                Comment


                                  Relativity obeys Boolean Logic. Relativity is a Vector Space except where V=C, and String Theory is a Vector Space with one exception, and Quantum Theory is a Vector Space with one exception, but STring Theory reduced it to one Vector Space violation instead of two. Dr. Michio Kaku is trying to develop a version of String Theory with no Vector Space Violations, because we have never observed real Vector Space Violation in the real Universe. In a Differentials class, you are taught a Mathematical Theorem which is used to prove that all conceivable Realities must be Vector Spaces. This is Boolean Logic.

                                  The fact Quantum systems can be in multiple states simultaneously does not violate Boolean Logic, because all of the States are individually Boolean.

                                  Groethe's law of attraction is used in 3 of the 4 known fundamental forces, and Particle Physics and Love Relationships, and Quantum Theory, and it obeys Boolean Logic.

                                  Gravity also obeys Boolean Logic, but is not known to obey Groethe's law....yet. It may be that Gravity does obey Groethe's law, but it just hasn't been discovered to be that way yet.
                                  Last edited by Wade; November 30th, 2019, 07:51 AM.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Wade View Post
                                    Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                                    "Killing is bad, so we should kill killers, mmkay."

                                    Brilliant.

                                    Never mind that prison is supposedly rehabilitative, rather than strictly punitive.

                                    "Murder" is the unlawful killing of an innocent person.

                                    "Capital Punishment" is the lawful, Just killing of a convicted murderer, who deserves to die.

                                    In the Context of Objective Morality, Murder is an unforgivable sin. No Objectively Moral God could forgive Murder just because the Murderer asks to be forgiven.

                                    IN the Bible, in the story of the two thieves on the Cross, one thief is forgiven because he had done nothing worthy of physical death, much less Hell. The Other thief is NOT forgiven, because he was guilty of "Sedition", which was most likely rape or murder, which are unforgivable sins which come with a Death Penalty.

                                    This concept is not new. There are forgivable sins which do not deserve a Death Penalty, and there are unforgivable sins which deserve a death penalty, and by implication Hell Fire.
                                    RussianCoffeeAddict

                                    So if morality were objective, Wade and Morpheus wouldn't be able to disagree with capital punishment on a moral level. This is objective truth. Morality is subjective and that you're all morons for trying to argue that it isn't.

                                    Thanks to all of you for playing, but the game's over. Please don't try again.
                                    Last edited by Cid; November 30th, 2019, 09:46 AM.

                                    Comment


                                      Wade why the FUCK are you still quoting the Bible when you don't believe in it?

                                      also, the one criminal was forgiven because Jesus convinced one of them that heaven was real, or else that he repented. The other one wasn't because he didn't believe. It had nothing to do with their crimes.

                                      And on top of that, sedition is basically speaking out against the government. That has nothing to do with either rape or murder.
                                      Last edited by OrganizationXV; November 30th, 2019, 10:54 AM.
                                      Originally posted by Wade
                                      Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Wade View Post

                                        "Murder" is the unlawful killing of an innocent person.

                                        "Capital Punishment" is the lawful, Just killing of a convicted murderer, who deserves to die.

                                        In the Context of Objective Morality, Murder is an unforgivable sin. No Objectively Moral God could forgive Murder just because the Murderer asks to be forgiven.

                                        IN the Bible, in the story of the two thieves on the Cross, one thief is forgiven because he had done nothing worthy of physical death, much less Hell. The Other thief is NOT forgiven, because he was guilty of "Sedition", which was most likely rape or murder, which are unforgivable sins which come with a Death Penalty.

                                        This concept is not new. There are forgivable sins which do not deserve a Death Penalty, and there are unforgivable sins which deserve a death penalty, and by implication Hell Fire.
                                        Please stop twisting the bible to fit your narrative. That's not at all how it is. The other thief wasn't forgiven because he didn't believe Jesus was Christ. He question him and demanded Jesus prove himself. https://stmichaelsabbey.com/saint-dismas Or Luke 23:39. Meanwhile the "good" thief rebuked the first and asked Jesus to remember him because he believed. That is why he was saved.


                                        Furthermore many theologians believed Paul was a murderer or at the least sanctioned death for many of the Jews he hunted down. So how can murder be an unforgivable sin if Paul himself one of the greatest apostles is forgiven for his terrible deeds. The ONLY unforgivable is "blasphemy against the holy spirit" or as others interpret it as "refusing to accept God's forgiveness."

                                        Here's the verses:



                                        • Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, any sin and blasphemy can be forgiven. But blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
                                        • Mark 3:28-30: 28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 30 - Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
                                        • Luke 12:8-10: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."



                                        https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tool...he-holy-spirit <-- more on it here.


                                        I don't like having to defend the bible and look up verses but I won't be letting you spew your blatant lies about it. I grew up in a church, reading the bible. I've literally read it front to back. So don't come here making up lies to fit your weird scientific narrative.

                                        Comment


                                        • OrganizationXV
                                          OrganizationXV commented
                                          Editing a comment
                                          "Scientific narrative" is a little more flattering than what I'd call it, but to each their own

                                        Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post
                                        So how can murder be an unforgivable sin if Paul himself one of the greatest apostles is forgiven for his terrible deeds.
                                        Because it doesn't fit the narrative. So it doesn't count.

                                        God himself wiped out countless numbers of people. During the plagues of Moses, God even murdered those that he himself called innocent. (First born children of the Egyptians) He commanded his servants to do the same on multiple occasions. It's literally impossible for anyone that believes in God to believe that morality is objective. lol
                                        Last edited by Cid; November 30th, 2019, 11:05 AM.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X