Debate Rounds (5)
morality is guided by objective so even thou subjective still absolute, like 1+1
deadly poisonous mushroom=immoral to give to my kid
healthy apple=moral to give to my kid
killing is evil but a wrong can be a right at the right tme
I'm not quite sure what the thesis you're proposing is, so please forgive me if my argument isn't relevant to yours.
I'm a Christian, so I believe that "right" and "wrong" are determined by God, the Creator, and not by man's law. You seem to think that whatever is law is "right", which is fallacious in of itself. Can you please provide a clearer argument, or at least provide evidence to support your current one?
logical is right, and illogical is wrong
bible presupposes sense, which makes the claim that the bible somehow tells me the truth and not my sense can only be invalid as i see it
logic determine right and wrong, becasue i dont pick it up and eat it when i notice it was a deadly mushroom i just picked up from the stack of apples, where as if i had grabbed an apple i was going for i might eat it
logic is the Measurement of resonable, i determine its right to not close my eyes right now to read on with my eyes, if i had transparent eye lids thou..
the healthy apple is the cause that its right to eat it, if it was a healthy apple dipped in poison it would be wrong thou, unless dying is my intent and its justified somehow..
I think there are a few differences between computer problems and moral problems. One, the Bible is not a manual to fix computers. Two, (no matter how many times I say it, you never cease to make your claim or provide evidence for it) logic, without the proper foundation to build off of (in this case, moral knowledge) is completely morally neutral. It can't tell you that eating a poisonous mushroom is bad, it just tells you that it will harm you. You make the decision that being harmed is bad, so it isn't the logic that determined that that was wrong, but you.
you said you cant tell wrong and right without the bible no?
logic is simply cause and effect, reality is logic, my old defintiion of logic was the implication of matter against matter, but you can mention any cause and effect example and see that i am right
eating a poisonous mushroom is bad if you do it to stay healthy.
Logic doesn't determine wether something is right or wrong to do. It can tell you what will happen (For example, a logical syllogism: Poisonous objects are harmful to consume, poisonous mushrooms are poisonous, therefore poisonous mushrooms are harmful to consume. That doesn't tell you wether it's a good idea or not to consume it, it just tells you what will happen. If you want to draw conclusions [like that eating the mushroom is bad] based on that logic, it's entirely you making that choice, and not the logic), not whether something's moral or not.
to contrast.. because i DIE from eating a deadly poisonous mushroom, its a bad idea to eat it if i am trying to stay healthy..
right is right.. wrong is wrong
obviusly the choice is mine and not the apples, but the apple dosnt have a choice about it being healthy and me going to eat it also
Pain isn't necessarily bad, and joy isn't necessarily good. If you're taking a medicine that tastes horrible, but helps you, is it bad? and if you derive pleasure from stealing from people, is that good? Man has some rough sense of morality, but it can only truly be refined by the Bible.
Again, you've still failed to spefify whether by "bad" you mean morally evil or factually incorrect. Both carry different meanings, which changes the argument drastically.
good is bad without balance
its not illogical to do it just because it tastes bad, becasue it helps me, and i might need it if i take it
no morality can exist from the bible alone, it dosnt explain anything, you have to look at reality to compare, sense trumps bible, bible presuppose sense
bad is bad.. not not bad
there is no difference to the word wrong and the word wrong
First of all, the Bible is a historic document (rooted in reality) that teaches morality, therefore is relevant and capable of supplying morals by itself. Second, the word "wrong" has multiple meanings. You clearly didn't understand or ignored what I said. I wasn't saying the word "wrong" was different from itself, only that it has multiple meanings, like quite a few other words.
Thus far, you've given no real evidence to support your claim, other than that you're very sure of your correctness, so I'm rather glad this debate is now over, it was quite the waste of my time talking to a brick wall...
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.