PLEASE REPLY
I
have to thank you once again for re-reminding me on the question and
showing me this great grace - what do you know? Atheists can show their
emotional-cructches called acts of kindness too even though they have no
non-fallacious way of ontologically justifying/ grounding it in
OBJECTIVE terminologies hahahaha (just teasing you).
Secondly ...
I do not believe that anybody has 100% conviction power over the
subjectivity over another person. But this is an analogy and it does not
apply to this objective real life - so I will play with you
Is this objectively moral or Inmoral?
This is objectivly
immoral of this analogical you. And I want to lay MORE emphasis on the
fact that you used the word "objective" to as an adjective for moral.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Here how I come to that conclusion by reshaping this argument (1):
THE MORAL ARGUEMENT
1. It is more reasonable to believe that moral obligations come from moral laws givers.
2. To be Objective means to be true IRRESPECTIVE of if everybody thinks subjectively that it is wrong.
3. To be true means that you have to endure constantly and neccessaily without neccesarily being contingent on physical reality.
4. God is Constant and Necessry Being.
5. "Persons" intrinsically imbible morality into their nature.
6. God is Person.
7. God is a constant and necessary being because HE deped on no one and nothing else to exist.
8.
God is the best inference (OR reference point) to grounding true
objective values because HE is a constant and necessary being.
9. Objective values and duties DO exists.
10.
Therefore, deductively, it necessarily follows that it is more
reasonable to believe that God exists as the best ontological grounding
for objective moral values and duties.
more justification
Your
analogical self in the example is objectively immoral because your
actions go anti- to the actions that God would generally take in that
condition - ie, given that there are no other sufficient moral reasons
God will do the opposite. However, I do not see any other sufficient
moreal reasons why you moral-goodness would come out from being like
"satan" [name meaning "accuser"] - who convinces people not to take
morally good actions but later on the day of judgement, would accuse
them/ sue them in God's court for being convinced by him in the first
place. If you have any additionaly moral sufficiency of why what the
analogical-you did to Jame is good, just and fair to James (seeing that
you have 100% conviction power over him) then please ... give the
reasons. Maybe James is in on this too and he is willingly allowing
you to 100% convince him into evil knowing that you would sue him later
on. No different than you know that the devil will sue you for not
believing in God but you still choose not to believe in God by allowing
the devil to 100% convince you to believe that God is not real - just
an example, I do not want to add anything into the mouth of your analogy
- i'm just expanding IF sufficient moral reasons justify you from doing
this evil deed.
This is to say that God is not like the deceiving-god of Islam. God does not lie nor deceive:
Numbers 23:19
God
is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should
change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not
fulfill?
And since your analogical moral actions are nothing
like God's Objective, unchanging and morally good actions - you are
therefore immoral.
Here is a link on how Atheism FAILS on grounds of morality (2).
So... why don't you tell me... are your analogical actions OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral on an atheistic platform without fallacious appealing to:
- Population: and saying "that's how everyone thinks"
-
Emotions/ Pain: and saying "if it does not hurt/ harm anyone" as if
people who hurt/ harm themselves in the gym are objectively evil
- subjectivism/ relativism: because this destroys the original question as to the "objectiveness" of morality.
I look forward to your reply.
God bless you
REFERENCES
No comments:
Post a Comment