"“Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.” - GK Chesterton

I didn’t have two hours, so I set it 2x speed and had everyone talk like Ben Shapiro

I'm a Christian and I really appreciate Cosmic Skeptic. I think he is open, honest and thoughtful.

Summary of the debate: CS: What reason do we have do trust our moral intuitions? IP: What reason do we have do doubt our moral intuitions?

Capturing Christianity is now one of my favorite podcasts. Very good setting to understand both point of views because the debate lasts for more than two hours.

who else was totally surprised that IP had a big tattoo on his chest

You should be skeptical about your skepticism.

It is more important in these types of debates to maintain civility than to aggressively try to trump the other.

I'm on team IP here, mostly because you can't simply "question everything" or all maths and science would fall apart. CS didn't deal with the fact that all areas of knowledge include "properly basic beliefs" or "axioms" or "common sense". CS is suggesting that I should be so hyperskeptical of the fact that "the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line" that I throw out all mathematics? The reasoning CS applied to moral realism, suggesting we should start by being skeptical of intuitions like these, and shouldn't accept a position, simply because we can imagine possible alternatives, isn't how any field should work. We accept the BEST explanation UNTIL we get confirmation that our intuitions/axioms are incorrect. For example, I could throw out the intuition about straight lines by saying "Maybe it's not" and then I could tell every mathematician that they shouldn't subscribe to any mathematics seeing as they are based on an intuition. But this would not be how knowledge is constructed. I could throw out all science simply because "Maybe our intuition that the laws of nature will remain consistent is wrong!". But nobody is throwing out all science and mathematics. We shouldn't throw out moral realism for the exact same reasons!

This was an interesting debate concerning the nature of morality, and whether moral realism is true, but it went deeper than that. I think Michael won the debate for multiple reasons. 1) He made a distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology that I am not sure Alex fully grasped; 2) Alex claimed we should be skeptical of moral facts, but offered no reason to be skeptical of moral facts in the first place, which would imply that there would be good reason to be skeptical of his own skepticism; and 3) He tried to exclude himself from the burden of proof, even though he was making moral claims, just as Michael did.

This was a phenomenal conversation! As far as winning and losing, people have the wrong idea of these things. I’d encourage folks to take these conversations as a way of learning about each perspective free of opinion. Both individuals made incredible points and if this dialogue was still taking place I’d still be listening. I think both gentlemen made some valid points to support their position. I wouldn’t exactly say O’Connor lost this discussion as I don’t see a clear “winner”. The folks that tend to disagree with O’Connor’s views for the most part are those who can’t fathom morality as being subjective. IP made solid points to show the possibility of morality being objective. I’m grateful to have listened to this exchange. I wouldn’t declare a winner or loser. This was a very healthy and stimulating discussion to appreciate. 🤙🏼

Cosmic Skeptic's epistemology is too inconsistent. In one instance he's okay with experience justifying realism but then denies how experience can justify moral realism. Either experience doesn't grant knowledge, which saws off the branch he sits on, or he needs more arguments to deny moral realism which he doesn't have.

That was intersting ! Thanks to every of the participants

Alex's skepticism being a good reason to doubt intuition only works if he was agnostic about morality, but in the beginning he said he is a non-cognitivist which is a positive claim of belief. His own standard only allows for agnosticism on the issue not a positive belief.

This didn't seem like a debate. It felt more like a great conversation to me! Love to see it

Really enjoy these conversations over and above the sound bites that Bill Mahr and Joe Rogan spout off on their shows. Respect for Alex being cordial and not being heated. I follow IP channel and have a ton more respect after hearing this discussion.

If you doubt morality, then live against it in all regards and come back and tell me what you've learned.

IP was quite clearly the victor in this particular debate.

Man... I remember when CapturingChristianity only had like 1.6 k followers. Amazing to see how far he has come

1:09:36 It really makes me happy how polite cosmic skeptic is here:) ~ a local Christian

This was really frustrating to watch, simply because Alex was completely incapable of distinguishing moral ontology from moral epistemology. I think this was because he misunderstood the argument for realism as circular logic. The argument isn't that we experience, therefore it must be true. Rather, it's that we're justified in believing morality exists objectively because of our moral experience, and there is no defeater for that experience. Very similar to the way we experience an objective external world through our senses. After a tedious battle over who has the burden of proof, Alex finally decided to offer a defeater in moral realism by saying that how we apprehend morality can be universally subjective. The problem is, if he's saying that means morality isn't objective, then he's guilty of the genetic fallacy. But more importantly, he's going back into moral epistemology. It got even more annoying when he just started *asserting* morality is subjective without an argument. I think this guy needs to brush up on the different branches of philosophy. I even picked up towards the end that he didn't understand the concept of "possible worlds" either, because he kept saying "possible universe" LOL

I don't quite follow CS reasoning. How can you denounce something as "wrong" if you deny morality is objective? Was his standard solely pain avoidance?

nice debate, IP clearly did his homework

As I see it, morality is objective, meaning any particular action in any particular case is either moral or immoral to a greater or lesser degree. The ultimate arbiter of course being God, the highest authority who has maximal wisdom and goodness. The Lord knows we lack the wisdom to always know what to do even if we desire for perfect goodness. Thus he expects us to be transformed by Christ, guided by his teachings and the Holy Spirit, and otherwise use our God-given agency to pursue greater wisdom. He didn't have to tell us it's wrong to be a sadist, but "love your neighbor as yourself" about covers it. He didn't teach us to end slavery: he told us to love our neighbor as ourselves. He expects us to use our brains to learn wisdom for different environments and cultures and races that we can develop better moral systems, all of which fall short of his standard, but to different degrees.

the person mediating this does an excellent job IMO. love how you slow it down for us, and can certainly say you’ve improved from the first debate I saw with IP on

The cosmic skeptic started to babble and run in circles when he tried to describe his view on morals. That's when I knew there was no reason to continue to listen. IP won before it even began basically...

Although I don't agree with Cosmic Skeptic on this issue, I find unlike other athiests, he's very consistant with his world view, which I respect. Still though, he got trounced in this debate

After listening to this I’ve Concluded Cosmic Skeptic’s position is in line with that of Matt Dillahunty’s “I’m not convinced” and so I’ll take the position of skepticism so I don’t need to provide a best explanation but rather just bring down your position by exposing “flaws” in your position

Morality is objective. Some things are absolutely bad and some things are absolutely good.

Great discussion! As usual, IP came on top :-)

Michael( Inspiring Philosophy) definitely won the debate

But what if I begin to doubt doubting? What if I become sceptical about being skeptical? As C.S.Lewis said: You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.

For not having free will, Alex has a lot of opinions.

I just found this channel. I like inspiringphilosophy but I also like debates and such as this also it's good to see a picture of Michael so thanks for this video.

Tbh, Alex tries, but he isn't on IP's level.

Everyone’s a critic XD Looking through the comment section.

Well done IP!

I think that IP won this debate. I think there were better points given on Michael’s side. I personally believe that the moral argument still stands.

Hey Cameron! I am a big fan of your channel! It's one of my favorites actually! Please, have more of this "friendly debates /discussions" with Michael and Alex. They both have such great and interesting point of views, i was enjoying their back and forth so much that I literally listened to the whole thing all at once without even realizing!

Here’s a game: Every time they say the word “objective” read a verse in the Bible. How far can you get starting at genesis?

He’s using objective language to try to speak subjectivism... poor poor skeptic.

I would have loved to have debated Cosmic. I have seen many of his videos and they are always way off the mark.

Great discussion... both are remarkable YT thinker in their respective worldview. It just confirms more “theism” to me.

What an amazing video. And what amazing Gentlemen, all 3 of You.

Last time I watched a Cosmic Skeptic debate it was with Frank Turek and he (CS) defined objective as "existing even if humans didn't" and thought that he couldn't even prove his own existence. Nice to see he's progressing. Maybe one day he'll become a Christian.

Does the cosmic skeptic just dismiss the concept of properly basic beliefs entirely?

Listening to CS is painful. The equivocation, goal post moving, and descriptives, notwithstanding his total lack of philosophical knowledge. The only books CS has read are Harris and Dawkins which he completely argued with until it was pointed out that both are philosophical failures. How can anyone say that "murder" and "rape" can be morally subjective? How can anyone claim that, as WLC puts it, torturing a child for fun is subjectively amoral? What if someone wants to become an abortion doctor? Is that a good thing, or morally reprehensible? What Alex is arguing here is for "pragmatic ethics", which he doesn't even realize, and should have been called out on. Throughout the discussion Alex is convinced that morality can develop thorough situational criteria. His doctor example, for instance. Sorry, no! Becoming a doctor is not a moral imperative and has no a priori position. Especially if said doctor becomes Gosnell. In Alex's world Gosnell has no a priori moral accountability. Neither does the person who becomes a doctor for financial gain by becoming a plastic surgeon in Hollywood. The doctor disruptive argument has no meaning to the question. The evolution thing is equally meaningless. After all, we are human beings endowed with the ability to reason, right? I mean, Alex thinks he reasons. I believe the point that's missed is that in a totally "evil" world doing good would be considered evil, just as doing evil would be evil. In other words, in a totally evil world there would be no distinction between good and evil. But, in a world in which good exists distinctions can be made between good and evil, and moral "oughts" exist a priori. In a world in which reproduction requires the forcible taking of a mate, without which promulgation could not occur, then it wouldn't be rape. In our world individuals have an inalienable right to the products of their own will and self determination. The only way an individuals will can be undermined is through force. Is Alex actually arguing that an individuals will can be undermined by force? What Alex won't say here is that the individual is not responsible for his actions regardless how heinous, since everything is determined as per his naturalistic ideology, and therefore no free will. What Alex doesn't realize that according to his own naturalistic ideology no statement or claim is true or false, meaning that he can't argue against and belief anyone has since it's the result of genetic determinations. In Alex's world there is no moral accountability. God doesn't exist so how could there be? In Alex's world there are just "bad acts" and actors. In Alex's world once society has determined what is bad, like conservatism and the belief in a moral authority and judge we call God, Man can achieve a utopian world were every individual evolved the capacity to do only good. As long as Man conforms to what Alex has determined to be good with no opposition. I suggest Alex take his head out of Dawkins and Harris's books, take his own advise and doubt what he believes, and look up current findings on intuition, and Kants "Theory of Mind". Sorry Alex, there's nothing new under sun. You're no exception. Peace.

Lol I don't think Cosmic Skeptic would upload this debate on his channel after all that schooling IP gave him. But if he does then props to him! :)

Cameron was right to clarify subjectivism vs emotivism. Subjectivism is the view that our moral judgements are truth-apt, and when true refer to subjective facts about attitudes (preferences, opinions, etc.). Emotivism is the view that moral judgements are not truth-apt, but rather are expressions of our attitudes. Compare the statement "I like cake", which when true refers to the fact that I like cake, with "yum, cake!" which is not capable of being true or false and does not refer to anything. How we experience morality has nothing to do with either subjectivism or emotivism. Our having subjective experiences of morality is not the same as morality itself being subjective. It didn't sound like Cosmic Skeptic actually said anything that would warrant moral subjectivism.

I think IP had strong points more than CS. He had made claims but yet has not disprove them. He said we should doubt every thing while giving no reason whatsoever. IP have made very good points but CS has not refuted them clearly. He just trying to "understand" or "unpack". I heared like 10 to 15 times. Although the skeptic was better off than in the nonsequitor show with IP vs GodlessEngineer.

Just wanted to put this out there, I'm an atheist and a moral realist/objectivist and a virtue ethicist. I naturally disagree with the proposition that a God is necessary for moral objectivity (in fact, I argue that a "God" cannot be the arbiter or "law-giver" of morality), but I also reject moral subjectivism/noncognitivism and find that it is largely self-defeating. Many philosophical atheists argue in favor of moral objectivism.

literally all of this is flying over my head but its also so interesting to hear lmao

"Good to see you", without a smile on his face. . . =(

Cosmic Skeptic thinks the ends justify the means in regards to causing pain.

1:26:25 So just to clarify this, the person Mike Jones was referring to was Dirk Willems. The rest of the story is the same

What difference does it make if morality is objective or not? It seems to me completely irrelevant outside of a somewhat interesting philosophical discussion. If morality IS objective, we certainly have no way to verify what is and isn’t actually objective moral/immoral. So long as we are blocked from fully investigating true objective morality, all we have are our subjective interpretations of what is and isn’t moral.

Very fascinating debate highly recommend it

The issue I take with Alex is always the same. He has said it in this, directly, he is agnostic. It would look the same if that was true or false, that objective morals exist. If you take that position, then you are logically forced to say, 'I don't know.'. It is where he should fall from what he is saying, as it logically follows, but he doesn't say that. He just has a vast distaste for having to prove himself. Thus, the consistent push to say you must be in the middle ground, but objective moral do not exist. Why Alex? Because you honestly believe something you do not desire to defend. That is not being honest with those that hear you. It is a real issue, & not hard to see thru if one takes even a slight peek at your statements. So what really is the reason you want people to go at least to the agnostic position? If you have a case, just give it. There is a real sinister vibe I get from people who just want you to deny what you believe because it might be false. That is any belief. Might be true, I have evidence for that. Where is the evidence it is false? If not, your doubt is unwarranted. God could be watch Alex. What if your wrong? Is that enough to believe?

"The whole basis for skepticism is that you take nothing for granted" ; Does that mean we are not permitted to doubt the modern critical principal?

Alex questions for the sake of questioning so he doesn’t have to ever take a position he’d actually have to defend.

A great discussion but I thought IP really missed an opportunity when Alex gave his color preference example. I found Michael's answer unsatisfactory. He should have countered Alex by informing him that you simply cannot even use an example such as "If everyone was predisposed to think blue was the best color then in that world it would be very difficult to conceive color as only a subjective preference." Why can you not use that argument? Because we already have knowledge in this world that color is a subjective preference. We don't have an outside knowledge of morality on those terms. So Alex was clearly begging the question. He assumes morality is subjective to make his point. We don't have an outside knowledge of morality and because of that there is absolutely no reason to question its intuition. In the same way, we cannot conceive the laws of logic, another rational enterprise, as anything but a necessary objective framework, which we all intuit. Alex's big mistake in this discussion was misunderstanding how "intuition" is being used. He can't disassociate the word with a "feeling" while Michael is using it in the epistemological sense in order to understand ontology. We intuit that logic exists, math is objective, the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago, and we're not brains in a vat. These are not feelings. They are self-evident truths. The same can be said for morality. Alex did not have any satisfactory answers for why this is not the case. Equating it to color preference or hunger or an extension of pain all assume subjectivity in order to deny intuition. His skepticism is completely unwarranted.

"uhhh yes i can answer that but it really needs some unpacking..." means, I know you have me, but i can waffle for 10 mins until we need to move on because I love my sin and it's making me lots and lots of money and i think i can eventually find a smarter way of dealing with this because obviously it's untrue... I just haven't delved down that rabbit hole deep enough... yet... again... still"

(1:00:00) say it, we (Christians) ultimately believe the what differentiates a moral proposition stems from WHO God is. And that flows into what His (moral "10") commandments are. A description of His character in a prescriptive form of commands for humanity, who are made in His image. There is probably a Trinity argument in the explanation of the decalogue as originating from a description of God's character, somewhere. For God commands what is good because HE IS GOOD.

While discussing morality, it's nature and origins, is a very interesting topic; You couldn't use morals to prove existence of a wooden plank in your garage, let alone a supreme, almighty being.

CS is conflating absolute with objective. Nothing is wrong or right according to his veiw. There is nothing outside of personal opinion.

Thinking Out Loud here... It is "good" to be a doctor just as it is good to be an engineer or a plumber or a baker or a Candlestick maker. From this perspective, "doctor" is a subcategory of "good", just as all these other vocations are also good. So you don't have to choose to be a doctor, you can choose any vocation, and that would be good. It is *not* good to choose to be a lazy bum sitting on the side of the street begging for handouts. Now we can move to moral imperatives: you ought to do good by choosing a vocation (to the extent you are able). You ought to not choose to, be a lazy bum. ( I'm spitballing it here, and open for Corrections)

Atheist philosophy grad student here, and I'm 1 hour into the video. It's not even true to say so far that Inspiring Philosophy won, because he didn't really have to do anything. Rather, Cosmic Skeptic loss because he defeated himself. He showed up with no arguments for his non-cognitivism, all he had was a terrible epistemology that he could use as an all-purpose way to avoid all arguments directed against his position.

Cosmic Skeptic should approach this type of debate completely differently: Instead of wasting time defending an irrelevant and complicated position of his own, he should push his opponent to state his position and defend it. Next time someone says "by the way, what's your position", just say "It depends on the debate. There are lots of positions that seem to have merit, and I'm not obliged to pick one in particular. Now... back to the question. How do you define the moral argument?"

CS' arguments are ultimately general arguments against realism of almost any kind. Yes, if we thought blue was "good" we might jail anyone who gets a green car. And if we experienced -- via said experience being ingrained in us by our evolutionary ancestry -- that there are pink unicorns flying next to each person's right shoulder, we would think that's true too; so what? The problem with doubting our intuitions, which is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself, is that we can always imagine them being different. If that's the case, why trust any of them? When the moderator brought up the example of the past being real or not, CS said it can be doubted but ultimately, the arguments against moral realism are stronger than the arguments against the claim that the past isn't real. Okay, suppose so, but that still doesn't tell us why he believes the past is real. What arguments can be offered for that claim? The only thing we have to rely on is our intuition of the past. Why then should we believe the past is real? CS also flirted with physical anti-realism since it works just as well as an explanation for scientific discoveries. We need not believe that the hypotheses we test -- perhaps after basing them on our intuitions -- actually conform to some objective external world. We need only believe some hypotheses conform to our collective intuitions of the external world. That says nothing about whether our experience of the external world is generally reliable. Following this line of reasoning we would be left with very little beliefs. Even theorems in mathematics are based on axioms, many of which are unprovable; why not doubt those? The real-world applications of math can be dismissed by some versions of physical anti-realism, too. What's next? The laws of logic? Never mind the existence of minds other than one's own, something we don't even experience. If that's the price of moral anti-realism or non-cognitivism, I think I'll pass. The arguments for realism aren't perfect (and no argument is perfect anywhere in the philosophical literature), and human intuitions are certainly fallible. But the alternatives lead to epistemic suicide. The cost is just too high.

Why wouldn't Alex doubt the laws of logic or mathmatics? It seems like his epistemology would call for that.

Re: the discussion of doctors and carpenters, this moral question is why supply-demand curves are useful to the field of economics.

I think Alex is saying that it is objectively wrong to insist that objective morality exists.

Consensus does not equal objectivity. You can have _collective_ morality without it being _objective_ morality. "Our group decided by consensus that circumcision is wrong and unnecessarily cruel to a newborn, so we will act to prevent it." "Our group has a god that demands circumcision, and we believe God's commands are good, so we will act to enforce it." If two groups could conceivably disagree that something is moral, as in the case of circumcision, no matter the size of each opposing group, then clearly morality is not objective. It is only the dominant opinion that determines what is moral for a group, and law (both religious and secular) is only a reflection of that dominant view. Slavery was "moral" until it was no longer the dominant view that it was moral.

We are rational to trust our moral intuitions in the absence of any defeater. Doubt alone does not provide sufficient warrant that our intuitions are false. It may be possible our intuitions are wrong but possibilities come cheap.

I have listened to Cosmic a lot and he is notorious for using the “moving the goalpost back” tactic. I don’t think he even knows what he thinks and believes sometimes. I am not trying to be cruel, but his hyper skepticism just leads to nonsensical first principles. So let’s doubt the doubt of my doubt! And, call it good philosophy. 🤔 I have seen many people fall to this tactic! Please do not mistake it for anything other than what it is, a tactic! Moral relativism is bankrupt. Anyone genuinely attempting to make good sense of moral values and duties would see this. I also think that cosmic was guilty of the fallacy of the beard! Drawing the line between the difference of rape, becoming a doctor and the moral responsibility to pull a baby out from drowning is clear. I may not know how many hairs it takes to make a beard, but I know when someone has one and does not.

My takeaway. All our definitions are subjective. We can redefine our terms as long as we want. All our intuitions can't be trusted. Our consciousness by which we perceive anything can be disregarded. And, oh, these thoughts are only limited to Philosophical discussions. I listen to such discussions and seem to understand that all these discussions should not have any bearing on reality[whatever that is] or shouldn't inform how we live. Hmmm

Does the theist actually need moral realism to make his case? It seems to me that a simple argument based solely on the fact that people are sensitive to moral reasons for action is enough. Arguably, the existence of organisms that are sensitive to or respond to moral reasons for actions is more likely to exist if God exists than if naturalism is true.

1:12:00 Cosmic is criticizing a school of moral realism, deontology, not moral realism itself.

Intelligence is created by concoussness, without concoussness there is no intelligence, so therefore without concoussness there is NO CREATION.

Just a little suggestion to those involved in the discussion in the video: it makes for a better viewing experience if you look into the camera, especially when speaking. Just meant to be helpful, that's all.

Cosmic Skeptic ironically vindicates Inspiring philosophy and proves his point. Poor guy

So CS read some watered down A.J.Ayer and thought it was the end of things?

A very key point in the debate is at 29:54 when Michael Jones said "keep going on that" and alex said "what do you mean." Alex seemed to think that his doubt in of itself was enough to dismiss moral realism where as in order to really dismiss moral realism, he should have provided a reason. For this reason I think Michael won the debate.

Moral facts don't supervene on subjective facts (it's possible for the moral facts to differ while the subjective facts hold constant), so they cannot be wholly comprised of subjective facts.

What’s laughable here is Michaels appeal to evolution giving rise to reliable intuitions. And yet on the other hand we have Alvin Plantinga arguing that it is possible for evolution to give rise to the favouring of traits based on false truth values. In other words Plantinga is arguing that we are rationally justified in questioning the validity of our moral intuitions, because they could be founded on the same erroneous evolutionary selection pressures. Or put more forcibly, on this argument Michael would have to show that moral intuitions are based on actual truth values. This is the stupidity of apologetics. That said, Plantinga has made a very strong case for seriously questioning the validity of moral intuitions, in the process whipping the floor from under Michael’s feet, much like a magician pulling a table cloth from under a table.set with crockery and glasses. Priceless.

I think the moral argument fails for reasons presented by people like Erik Wielenberg and Derek Parfit but I also think Cosmic Skeptic got wrecked here...

I don't know if we can prove that morality is either subjective or objective...I think it really just comes down to the individual implications of believing one way or the other. If morality is subjective, then evil cannot exist, so Hitler and Nazi Germany literally did nothing wrong. But if morality is objective, we hold them to an unchanging standard which I think tends to play out a bit better throughout history. Personally, this is my biggest hurdle to being a full-blown Atheist. It's not about being convinced, but the implications carried by believing one way or the other - I guess I would rather live in a world where Nazis are considered evil.

Gods foreknowledge of our choices does not negate our free will. God foreknows what we "will" do, but, God also foreknows what we "could" have done, but did not.

Was the Muhammad-Aisha relationship moral? "Absolutely not" - Alex Is morality subjective? "Yes" - Alex A bit inconsistent & hypocritical there mate. Denial, perhaps?

I've been teaching philosophy at the university for over 25 years. To this day I am somewhat mystified by the so-called "moral argument," insofar as God, even if he exists, could not successfully explain morality.

He came to believe he doesn’t have freewill? He reasoned away his ability to freely reason.Denying your ability to reason is completely unreasonable and self refuting.

Why not try something a little different and host an argument between a Christian and someone of a different religion, rather than between a Christian and an atheist? Between a Christian and a Jew for example.

CS seems far too confident. Great guy, but damn to think you understand the full grounding of morality and stuff is just off.

The mental gymnastics and contortions that the CS has to perform in order to deny the obvious are certainly not without entertainment value. At the same time, I feel exhausted for him.. poor kid.

51:00 - 53:00 - I feel like Micheal was not understanding Alex here. Alex wasn't saying that those humans picked blue subjectively just 'because' or as a preference - he was saying these humans all had an internal intuitive instinct to think that blue was the best color - i.e. it just 'feels' right that everything should be blue - and this universal agreement among these albeit strange humans would really think that green is wrong. Obviously these humans that think blue is the best color internally don't exist - but I get what Alex is saying here. There's no reason to think their internal intuition about blue is objective even though they, for some reason, all agree that it is. For myself, I know it feels very certain to think that murder, rape, etc. are generally wrong, and if everyone agrees to this intuition that pain is bad, we really would think these things are objective. But Alex is saying they are not based on anything objective. In a way, it's similar to what Matt says on this topic - that if humans agree to well-being as a foundation for morality, then you may make objective assessments about murder, rape, etc. to develop a consistent, objective morality. But the foundation for that moral system would still be subjective, even if almost everyone intuitively would agree with it. It's too bad they later got hung up on the word pain. I agree - pain is not a good term. Matt's Well-being terminology would have been better. But the dialog shifted away from what I thought was the actual interesting point that Alex made and it went on to something far less interesting and fairly pointless imo. Michael won the exchange here, and it's a shame because Alex should not have allowed the discussion to get hung up on a word. That's on him.

When you boil both worldviews down to the very foundation of each argument, Atheism argues from a point of absurdity (there is no objective standard, there is no right and wrong, therefore there is no absolute truth) and the Christian argues from a point of objectivity, appealing to God as the objective standard, revealed in His Word, seen in reality. If you were to examine the way an atheist lives, however, you would notice they SAY their is no absolute truth, yet they LIVE as if there is(assuming the Law of induction, morality, transcendent value of life, etc.) The very fact that an atheist has an opinion, can appeal to the law of logic, can have moral values, or even understand anything screams "I'm made in the image of God", because mere bags of stardust don't voice their opinion or respond to anything. There is no escape.

Costim skeptic gives me a headache. all you hear from him is "it depends what you mean by this and that"

The reason we don't see a preference in color and a preference in murder in the same way is because they effect reality different.

every time IP name drops take a shot lol

The deeper you dig into Philosophy,Science etc The more youll understand how 'Language ' is the inevitable hard problem... Humanity is in need to devise a greater and more sophisticated tool that will replace LANGUAGE