The Instigator
primeministerJoshua812
Pro (for)
The Contender
Marcvs_Antonivs
Con (against)

God is a morally perfect being

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Marcvs_Antonivs has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,655 times Debate No: 116373
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (136)
Votes (0)

 

primeministerJoshua812

Pro

I shall begin with the Moral argument for the existence of God.

The argument goes like this

P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Now one might consider this argument to be a non-sequitur but I will show why it is not. Now the premises I have laid here are the traditional premises usually brought up by apologists as Dr. William Lane Craig but for the purposes of simplicity, I would like to change up the premise wording using the format presented by Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy in his video on the topic we are discussing of course with a little word changing. I'll put the link to that video here: https://www.youtube.com......

Okay so.

P1. Morality is a rational enterprise
P2. Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded
in a human source of rationality.
P4. Premises 1, 2, and 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity (Refer to this video on the
Contingency argument for further explanation: https://www.youtube.com...... ).
P5. The source of necessity is what we call God (refer to video in Premise four)
Con. Therefore, God exists.

Is P1 sound? Yes, it is because Morality is deciphered through reason and logic. Just like mathematics and philosophical positions. We know that Morality cannot be based on naturalistic principles because you won't get moral and ethical truths through empirical testings. If someone is about to hurt someone else we cannot know how we ought to act. We can only reason that we do not act in a certain way. Confirming our first Premise. If the debate reaches that point I will address those who object to this aka those who support to non-cognitivism. Is the second premise sound? Yes, it is and hears why. Now before I defend Moral realism I would like to define Moral realism. Moral realism defined is summed up like this

Moral realism is true even if no one believes it just like the laws of logic or the laws of physics. Moral realism is independent of Human Cognition but we can tap into moral realism using our cognition. Doing this will help us better operate in reality.

I will be defending Moral Realism 5 points. As with all philosophical arguments, I not here to provide proof that moral realism exists but that instead, it is more likely than unlikely. So let us begin.

#1 The Argument from Epistemic Realism Philosophy Professor Dr. Terence Cuneo

P1. If Moral facts don't exist, then epistemic facts don't exist
P2. Epistemic facts do exist
Con #1: Moral facts exist
P3. If moral facts exist, moral realism is true
Con #2: Moral Realism is true.

The problem identified is thus how can the skeptic uphold epistemic oughts but deny moral oughts when the two are almost identical. Here an example. Let us say were are debating whether the minimum wage should be raised, In the debate, one should and will assume that the other will uphold epistemic duties such as not misrepresenting statements, not make logical fallacies, and being honest. The person prescribes epistemic duties and expects for them to be upheld but that is exactly the problem. Why should I uphold these things if they are all relative? The individual argues for epistemic truths while saying they are subjective let through their demands reaffirms epistemic truths and thus reaffirms moral truths. For example, affirming intellectual honest affirms moral honesty.

The next argument for Moral Realism is Experience.

It is almost impossible to find an individual who lives out Moral relativism. Jean-Paul Satre was a Moral relativist but argued for action against human genocide. He said that he choose this position himself but why would he attempt to force his views on others who disagree? If it's all subjective then why does it matter when it comes to how we treat people if it doesn't affect you. Why do some moral relativist claim it is wrong to enslave women in other countries when it does directly or indirectly affect them? Do other cultures not have the right to decide what is moral? Yet no one lives like that. If someone says that something is right or wrong it means that they are affirming Moral realism. This shows that all humans subconsciously have come to realize that there is a moral reality independent of our control. The argument from experience can be summed up in three Premises.

P1. If Moral Realism is false people would not live like it is true
P2. People do live like Moral Realism is true
C. Moral Realism is true

Okay so onto the argument from the Problem of Moral Disagreement.

We do not only act as if moral realism is true, we also converse as if certain moral principles are true. If non-realism is true then we have to accept genital mutilation or the values of the KKK as equal to that of those who oppose such things. In other words, these are non-debatable moral principles. Common sense shows that both cannot be right and wrong but must be one or the other and therefore logical deduction confirms this argument.

On to the argument from Moral progress and Convergence.

This argument can only work with Moral realism. The majority of people no longer think it is okay to enslave other ethnicities or kill other people for fun. if we consider this progress it would on work if we believe we are working towards an objective moral standard and not just arbitrarily changing morality. Just as Science slowly shows us how the Universe works. Moral Realism slowly shows us what ought to be right and wrong. So what about the cultural disagreement argument against moral realism? Moral Convergence seems o address this argument which is not really an argument against Moral Realism. For example, different cultures have different views on whether the Earth is round or flat but that doesn't mean that Science is subjective and we don't know the objective shape of the Earth. You see cultural differences on moral issues is not a moral debate but a factual one. For example, African tribes believe that it is wrong to murder infants unless they are deformed because they believe the deformed infant was caused by spirits. They have factual errors. It is their beliefs about facts that cause them to act a certain way not beliefs about morality. When given the facts cultures tend to agree on certain moral principles as objectively true.

So the premise for the argument is

P1. If Moral Realism is false, moral progress and convergence would not be possible
P2. Moral progress and convergence is possible
C. Moral Realism true.

The final argument I will present is the argument for Intuition.

Moral facts are self-evident. How do we know? If a child is tortured no sensible person will look at that and say that is just how others see the world and we should move on. No, we would demand that such must be stopped and justice must be done. Why because Morality is objective and real as well as self-evident and intuitive and is our starting point. The burden lies on the skeptic to show our intuitions are wrong, not the moral realist.

So what about P3. Is it sound? Yes, it is we cannot be the source of moral knowledge because we are not perfect beings and Hitler is a great example. We also do not know fully about moral facts. We fail to perform moral duties. We are also contingent beings (refer to Contingency argument for further explanation). For example, we discovered the laws of logic and mathematics but we did not make them. 2+2=4 even if no human exists. P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. Becuase we are contingent and fail to follow moral laws. Logical deduction shows us that P1 and 2 confirm that morality must be grounded in a necessary and rational source. The source must also be sentient. P4 is therefore confirmed. So the basis for morality must be A conscious rational necessary entity who would serve as the foundation for morality and whom we would like to for moral guidance. Logical deduction leads us to P5. If Moral Realism is true then the source for Morality is God simply using logical deduction we can confirm this. So what about the Conclusion is it sound? Yes the Ontology of Moral Realism (Ontology being the metaphysical study of the nature of being) grounds morality in a conscious rational necessary entity to whom the title of God is given (see the ontological argument for more info: https://www.youtube.com...... )

Let me give you an example when Chemist discovered that water was H2O they didn't merely stipulate that one was the other but rather they discovered that the terms mean the same thing. You see Good=God and God=Good. Moralism realism must be ground in unchanging beings and this is important as it shows that the moral argument can only be used to defend the existence of a Monotheistic God who is omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresent.

My final statement is based on whether morality comes from evolution. This most likely didn't happen and even if it did it does not disprove moral realism. The moral argument is about the foundation for moral values and duties not how we came to k ow those truths. Moral epistemology deals with how we came to know moral values. As Dr. Frank Turek argues

Moral laws are not chemical or biological: they are immaterial and come from personal agents. Chemistry and Biology are descriptive, not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive, not what ought to survive. He preceded to give an example of rape and murder and how evolution would see moral changes in the name of human survival. If P2 of the Moral argument is sound than evolution can't account for morality.

I shall await your rebuttal.
Marcvs_Antonivs

Con

INTRODUCTION
Prior to refuting your argument, I should like to establish assumptions, definitions and premises for which will serve as fundamental bases for my argument:
What must be taken into consideration upon defining Morality?
- For one to be Moral, one must adhere to the recognition of Good and Bad
- The distinction of Good and Bad
- An Intuitive thought process that we ought to do Good and not ought to do Bad

DEFINTION:
Therefore, Morality shall be defined as being:
The Intuition that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not to do that which is bad.

I shall predicate much of my argument around this specific definition of Morality, as it encompasses both the fundamentals of distinguishing between Good and Bad, and the justification for why we ought and ought not to take part in an ethically motivated action, while further embroiling Ethics and ontology (Two areas of philosophy that shall prove fundamental within this debate)

CLAIM #1:
The only way by which God can be a Morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, and the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself.

This is why your first argument regarding the existence of God and how Objective Moral's demonstrate for his existent proves ineffective in the context of this debate. The Second premise of the three premised argument: "Objective Moral Values and duties do exist" is a blatant assumption, supported by no real form of empirical evidence, much less a compelling hypothesis.
If I were to ask for what constitutes as evidence for the existence of Moral Realism and Objective Morality, I might find myself within the confines of an answer that states: "The existence of God evidences the existence of Moral Realism and Objective Morals", for which will beget an infinite repetition of A demonstrates B, for B demonstrates A. This is the consequence of attempting to prove irrationality through the use of an Assumption. The existence of God does not suffice as a rational attempt at proving the existence of Objective Morality, much less does the existence of Objective Morality suffice as a rational attempt at proving the existence of God.

Thus, leading to the claim for which I made earlier: "The only way by which God can be a Morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, and the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself."

Any form of Morality can be Objective per se if made the subject of the definition of Morality for which I displayed earlier. I shall use both Theological Morality and Sam Harris' Morality of Well being as an example of this (Both claimed to being objective forms of Morality).

The Intuition that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not to do that which is bad, primarily focuses on the conflicting relationship between Good/Bad and Ought/Ought not, thus including both an Ethical and Ontological perspective of Morality.

CLAIM #2:
On the basis of "Good" and "Bad", we are subjective beings who in essence are unable to comprehend an existing objective definition for "Good" and "Bad", as these two terms are impossible for us to define through a rational and objective manner, thus, concluding that Moral Realism is not true.

Sam Harris makes the claim that the fundamental basis of Morality itself is well being, Moral theologists make the claim that the distinction of Good and Bad (Along with what we ought and ought not to do) is entirely predicated on what God deems Good and Bad. Unfortunately this does not constitute as a sufficient form of evidence to conclude that Moral Realism is true, for you have merely constructed an unique objective moral philosophy, entirely dependent on what you have chosen to orient the definition of Morality around: God.

This is also prevalent within Sam Harris' Objective Morality through Well Being without a God claim. What we ought to do, is that which is Good, and that which is Good, is that which will beget "Well Being", thus serving as sufficient evidence for the existence of Moral Objectivism, for we can measure what action brings about 'Well Being' just as we can measure what action ethically coincides with 'God's will'. Unfortunately, this is not the case since the inclusion of Well Being jeopardizes the essential basis of Morality itself. Good and Bad cannot be properly defined without the need for a subjective assessment of differing moral philosophies, and thus demonstrates that Morality in of its entirety, is subjective; Even with the existence of an "omnipotent being". This is due to the fact that:

Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well beings and suffering in the universe.

There is no way by which we can objectively prove what ethical actions are "good" or "bad" for these two terms are too broad for the understanding of an individual, much less can we objectively demonstrate that we "ought" or "ought not" do something that is ethically grounded in an action.

Ontologically speaking, there is no more a reason for why we ought to do things, as there is no way for us to prove objectively whether Good is Good for the individual, or rather the utilitarian collective.

"We do not only act as if moral realism is true, we also converse as if certain moral principles are true. If non-realism is true then we have to accept genital mutilation or the values of the KKK as equal to that of those who oppose such things. In other words, these are non-debatable moral principles." - primeministerJoshua812

I fail to see any suggestion that anybody who is a relativist, or an objectivist for that matter lives life in accordance to objectivist morality. To prefer an ethical action to another one, commonly grounded on theological or faith based rationing does not suffice as evidence to suggest that we live in a world where the entirety of the population follows an objectively moral compass. To say that I prefer the sovereignty of the individual for he makes his own path to the honor killings and genital mutilation of Arabic countries does not suffice as a logically sound argument for objectivist morality, for there are still millions who follow barbaric practices, despite them supposedly being "objective" (Keep note of this sentence)

The preference for a certain ethical action to another is entirely dependent on varying ways of knowing, ranging from sense, logic, reason, ration, intuition, faith and more. Evolutionary biologists have found a common trait amongst differing species of monkeys, this common trait has resulted in the discovery that monkey's too expect 'fairness', and in part follow the idea of "do unto others what you want others to do unto you". This is not a homosapien-orietned idea, but is also prevalent in various animal species. This is one of many examples that demonstrates "fairness" without the need for a theological dictator. I choose to prefer sovereignty to such barbaric actions because I fall to using logic and compassion, as opposed to blind faith to generate my ethical compass. However, I will be the first to admit that it is still a relativist and subjective claim to make, upon considering the broad definitions of "Good" and "Bad", however, I don't have to consider such actions as "equal" as you've stated.

To make the argument that sovereignty is objectively better to honor killings is a statement that must be predicated on a specific moral philosophy. Of course it is "Good" or "objectively better" in the context of what God Intended, or rather in Sam Harris' case, in the context of "Well Being", but in the context of Morality itself, there is no piece of evidence to suggest that it is Objectively Bad, or that We ought not do it.

Now for the sentence that I told you to remember:
"To say that I prefer the sovereignty of the individual for he makes his own path to the honor killings and genital mutilation of Arabic countries does not suffice as a logically sound argument for objectivist morality, for there are still millions who follow barbaric practices, despite them supposedly being "objective"

I have made the claim that it cannot be objectively moral to do a certain action, for there are still millions who practice it. I suspect that you would respond to this (Granted how you've structure your essay) with a "Moral Realism is true, therefore Morality is Objective, just like Science, Language, Mathematics. Taking this into account, just because people do not practice it, does not mean it is not true, just that they are perhaps misguided in their ideologies and religions."

This begets a problem however. What makes you certain that the theological being for which you have predicated much of your morality under, is the being that is objectively correct? What makes the other Monotheistic or Polytheistic figures incorrect? Well, I assume you would thereby rely on your own subjective judgement to assess which religion best represents an objective morality. There is then no objective answer to suggest that the other religions are false with their ethical barbarism, but that of a Monotheistic Omniscience, Omnipotent and Omnipresent God is.

To Conclude, Although God is a morally perfect being, he is only that within the confines of the Axioms you have set out to create. In the confines of your own moral philosophy, that which is Good, is that which God deems as Good, thereby proving to being Objectively and Morally perfect. Just as somebody who is perfectly Altruistic is a Morally Perfect Being (If we are to deem "Good" as "Altruistic" and "Bad" as "Selfish".

I'll end with this question:
Is God able to create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it?

How can he be omnipotent if unable to create, or carry such a rock?

I shall wait for your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
primeministerJoshua812

Pro

Okay, so I would define Morality as a rational enterprise made by conscious thinking. I have already defended the reasons for such a definition. Therefore if your definition is the basis for this argument then either refute my definition or your argument is useless. However, upon research, I have found that "moral intuition" does not defeat the moral argument. It is called the Argument for God from Moral Intuitions it was presented by Randy Everist of Moralapologetics.com

I will give you the link: https://www.moralapologetics.com...=

Addressing claim #1

I believe you have a semantic misunderstanding of the Moral Argument. The Euthyphro Dilemma the Moral argument shows that I am not just arbitrary grounding morality in God. I have looked at the Ontology or Morality and have logically deduced that Moral facts and duties must be grounded in a rational, necessary and unchanging source. The title of that being is God. The ontology of benevolence shows thus using rationality of which Morality can be deciphered. God if one exists is omniscient and thus would know what is right and wrong. You see the Good is just titled, God. The Good is not something different let dependent on him but instead, the Good is the necessary, rational, unchanging source in whom we would call God. Basically the Good=God and God=Good. A being worthy of our praise and worship.

Reading your other thought I wonder whether you read my elaboration on the Moral argument in my first post which includes three new premises and a defence of Moral realism.

Addressing Claim #2

I defended Moralism Realism in my first argument. I will take the time to define what Moral Realism is. Moralism Realism is defined as the following:

Beyond our Cognition, there are actual Moral facts and duties we are discovering and learning about

We can tap into this through a cognitive sense.

We can use these moral facts to better operate in morality

Moral facts would be true even if no humans believe them.

A good example of this is Science. People debate over how to interpret Scientific data but no matter what we know that Science is stance independent and that it can explain a world that we know exists through our external senses. This does show that humans are not morally perfect beings and are still discovering moral truths and duties just like when various groups disagree about science it only shows we do not have a mastered understanding of the universe. Morality like Science is not dependent on humans as we are still discovering our morality but that does not disprove objective moral truths (moral realism). Another example is how Morality is not dependent on humans even though we moral actions are caused by us. Like the Laws of Logic, Moral Realism would be true even if no human was around to write them down. Moral Rationalism also removes the philosophy of Moral Universalism which is the idea that Moral laws are unbreakable.

A videos addressing Sam Harris:

The apparent moral relativism is an issue of Factual error, for example, Africans who believe it is right to kill deformed infants because they were made by an evil spirit but any other infant is to be spared. It is a matter of epistemology not ontology. Evolutionary Biology does not remove God. Evolution particularly Process structuralism of which I am an adherent would only show how we can to know Moral facts and duties, not their origin or ontology. As I said Morality is a rational enterprise it can be deciphered using rationality and reason but as I have defended Moral realism. I have shown that Morality cannot be based on naturalism particularly Human naturalism. It is based in a being higher than us to whom the title of God applies. As a relativist, you DO have to consider all morality equal as your morals are not greater than that of the KKK and school shooters. A being who is perfectly Altruistic would in your context as I understand it would be given the title of God as explained in the Moral Argument.

The Ontological argument would address the idea of polytheism and your other thoughts. If you would Like I can further discuss this.

To conclude God =Good and Good=God. Moral Realism exist and leads back to Good

On your question. No God cannot because while God has the power he only functions in the Laws of Logic and it contradicts for God to create a stone he cannot lift.

Blessings
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
136 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Greek classic logic works by means of the Order of a syllogism. Jewish logic, Revealed together with the revelation of the Written Torah, Its referred to as Oral Torah, Employs an Order of 13 Attributes by which all generations can make measured comparisons and contrasts from the Books of the Prophets - found in the NaCH literature - with the Torah.

What defines a Torah and NaCH Prophet? A prophet commands Mussar. Mussar represents a deep ethical idea which has tremendous depth. Why? B/c this mussar - which all prophets command - it applies equally to all generations of the brit people - the people who accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai - both in the days of Moshe and all the NaCH prophets but equally today. Torah teaches spirituality not history.

Righteous Justice, Upon this foundations stands all Torah commandment mussar.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Last post then I am off to bed. I have defended my claims, my syllogism and you have not offered refutations of my arguments that have stood up under scrutiny/ How can you expect me to adopt them.

I told you to look for the answers in previous posts and the definitions are not that hard to figure out yourself.

Sir, I stated a fact you objected, I defended the fact, your objected again, I defended the fact against your objections. I am truly sorry you could not learn anything. However, I have stated facts and I have elaborated. You also repeated your beliefs. Good commentary though. If you would like to debate anything else feel free to reach out to me preferably on politics, society, economics, religion and philosophy. Good night and God bless.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
Why you keep stating your opinion man? you said you didn't agree then proceed to state your claim. do you know how worthless your opinions are to anyone other than yourself? I do, so i try to show why they are important. you dont. you seem to assume that they are truths and proceed to echo them repeatedly over the course of the debate. this is tiring. i hope by debating with a polymath , i could learn some new things. so far, ive learnt nothing, maybe its because you have nothing i can learn from. I'm sorry but i feel like ive wasted my time debating you. your debating style is stupidly passive. you simply say your opinions and hope that people would automatically force it upon themselves. rmb that youre debating, not lecturing so i donot assume your stuff are correct.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
1. "I agree with everything except for the final premise. The experiment demonstrates that in reality you can get rid of all rational observers and a statement such as a door is closed represents a fact of reality." == Ok so you dont agree? that does not affect the validity. you then stated your unsupported claim. and you did this several times. i think you are unable to draw anything new from your brain so icall an end to this

2/ "You can't answer the question? Independent of the mind means something that is is not in the mind but is a reality of the external world which we can decipher through our senses." == i need definitions. that's not what i asked for. i ask for def of TRUE and EXIST . you gave a synonym, thats hardly defining

3. "Logic is not a science. So the same principles do not apply." == this is a debate, so claims need to be supported,
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Ok so let us look at your syllogism. I agree with everything except for the final premise. The experiment demonstrates that in reality you can get rid of all rational observers and a statement such as a door is closed represents a fact of reality.

You can't answer the question? Independent of the mind means something that is is not in the mind but is a reality of the external world which we can decipher through our senses.

I was saying that if it existed in the external world independent of the mind then my argument would be true but because it is in subject to the mind than you're right. My goals were necessarily wrong and thus I am not necessarily wrong.

I recall defining Truth and Fact so go back into my other posts and see if you can find it.

Logic is not a science. So the same principles do not apply.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
"Yes because in Science nothing is 100% certain due to inductive reasoning. " ==Yes, no scientist , even after rigorous repetitve testing can conclude their findings are universal. and YET, Your tautological claims supported by a flawed thought experiment makes it 100% universal.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
1. "I am saying that a rational observer is not needed for the truth of the axiom." == YES, IKNOW. BUT WHAT IAM SAYING IS : every thought experiment that you do to demonstrate that claims fails because the word thought experiment requires at least 1 rational observer to draw a conclusion. OK ,lets put it this way
P1: No experiment could come to a conclusion without an observer
P2: your thought exp kills all rational beings
P3: your thought exp has a conclusion therefore it had an observer
P4: if it had an observer then your thought exp did not eliminate all rational beings
P5: if it didn't eliminate all rational beings, it didn't demonstrate logic is independent of all rational beings.

2. "Do you believe humans or a rational objective are needed for something to be true for example is a human needed for it to be true that a banana exists?" == I cannot answer this question util you give me a definition of these terms that is mind-independent: True, exist.

3. "When discussing scientific laws or constants they are descriptions of observations in reality. So for an example is an apple that falls from a tree we ask whether there is something causing the apple to fall from the tree everything this is tested and we have discovered there is and we have called that cause gravity and because Science is based on data we use inductive reasoning until shown otherwise." == agree

4. "A line is straight as what we can conceive in our minds. A perfectly straight line. A line with no bends, curves" == such a thing exists in mind, so when you said it is independent of humans, youre wrong

5."I am saying that if it is independent of the mind and exists in the external world than it does not require a rational observer for it to be true."=== philosophy is misuse of language. define TRUE
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
You are correct on the mental thought idea. I am saying that a rational observer is not needed for the truth of the axiom. You seem to not understand my point and so I have a question. Do you believe humans or a rational objective are needed for something to be true for example is a human needed for it to be true that a banana exists?

When discussing scientific laws or constants they are descriptions of observations in reality. So for an example is an apple that falls from a tree we ask whether there is something causing the apple to fall from the tree everything this is tested and we have discovered there is and we have called that cause gravity and because Science is based on data we use inductive reasoning until shown otherwise.

A line is straight as what we can conceive in our minds. A perfectly straight line. A line with no bends, curves etc.

Yes because in Science nothing is 100% certain due to inductive reasoning. Also, I would suggest you don't make assumptions about a dead man. Remember unlike you, he believed in God just like me. Newton may have come up with the name of the laws and the name of the things they describe but he did not come with the things they describe.

In the mind, it requires an observer and I am not denying that. I am saying that if it is independent of the mind and exists in the external world than it does not require a rational observer for it to be true.

The debate was on the Moral Argument. We are debating the independence of Logic among other things.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
you mentioned you watch debate. is that where most of your arguments from?
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
"If there was a true straight line the point I am making is that it does not require a rational observer to be true." == true straight line only exist in the mind. you can only see a true straight liine in your mind. and you only know such line exist if only you see it in your mind. if you dont see it, the straightline does not exist in your mind, thus it requiess rational observer.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.