Openly Reasoned

Exactly right! The question is: What are we going to do about it? vm.tiktok.com/ZM8SexV3Y/

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 👉Judgements are not preferences! 👈 This is why judges never decide cases on whether they prefer if the defendant is guilty or not. A judgement is an analysis. People make moral analyses that conflict with their personal preferences literally every day.

Your judgment is nothing more than your preference. Do you think your judgment is something other than preference? If it's not your preference then what is it? Is beauty not based on what you personally prefer or think is beautiful? Of course it is which is why it is preference. It doesn't matter that you want to It doesn't matter that you want to play word games and get away from the obvious flaw in your argument, it is still preference. And the ultimate meaning to you isn't actually ultimate meaning. When I talk about ultimate meaning or meaning in reality I'm talking about something Beyond you. So for example, the speed of light has ultimate meaning outside of your preference. It has actual meaning in reality. Your preference doesn't and that's the difference. Your second sentence is again nonsensical because most good has no meaning. Your preference of what you personally think is most good means nothing in reality outside of your personal preference. At least going by your framework. If someone says that does cause the most good to steal the flower from their viewpoint, who are you to say they're wrong and that it's immoral? You can't say that you're right and they are wrong because you have no standard to say that. So you can't say that it doesn't cause the most good because most good can mean anything to anyone without a standard. Which means that the statement that it's immoral is a meaningless statement. You can't show it's actually immoral or that the person who claims that it is moral is wrong.

You don't need religion/God to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 Hitler probably did judge his actions as moral. I judge them to be very much immoral. That we disagree doesn’t make morality non-existent. Morality very much exists! Similarly, we might disagree on which flower boutique is most beautiful. Yet beauty very much exists.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying by the word meaningless. I am not saying meaningless as in I don't know what you mean by it. I am saying meaningless as in it has no ultimate meaning. You're mixing up understanding what someone is communicating with actual meaning behind what they are communicating. When you say that something is the most beautiful you are communicating that your personal preference for beauty is that thing. I can know what you are communicating without the thing you are communicating having any actual reality. And that is what I am saying when I say it is meaningless the same way that I'm saying most good is meaningless if it's purely subjective. You can tell me what you mean by most good, maybe for you most good means the thing that preserves the most amount of life, but that might not be the most good for someone else. Which means in reality under your model most good is meaningless. It's just whatever you decide to claim is most good. But you have no way of showing that what you claim is most good is actually most good. Because there's no actuality behind it. So how can you say that morality is whatever creates the most good when most good can mean anything and there's no standard to hold that phrase too. Then how do you know what's moral because morality creates the most good but most good is meaningless in the sense that it can mean anything in actuality to anyone there's nothing actual behind it. So using that to definition of morality you would have to say that Hitler was moral because from his Vantage Point his actions were creating the most good even though you would disagree because his preference on what is most good is different than yours. So you can't say his actions were immoral, you can only say that they don't align with your preference. Meaning morality doesn't actually exist in your view

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 I’m communicating my judgement, not my preference. That I judge a specific boutique to be the most beautiful is the “ultimate meaning.” Likewise “It’s immoral steal from this flower shop” is me communicating my judgement that a particular action won’t cause the most good.

I've already explained the difference between morality and beauty. Beauty is something that can be subjective, morality is not. But in the same way that most good is meaningless if it's merely subjective, most beautiful is also meaningless. It's relevant in in the sense that if I'm talking to you about my opinion on what is beautiful it can inform you on what I think is the most beautiful thing. But when we say something like most beautiful we acknowledge that your view of what is most beautiful might be different and there is no right and wrong related to it. You're just saying that you think this thing is the most beautiful and if someone thinks it's not they are right for them and there is no right and wrong. But with morality, when you say it is achieving the most good, you are saying that an action that causes something different than what you call the most good is wrong. You're saying it's bad. And you're holding other people accountable to that. You're not just saying that someone who has a difference of opinion than you is also right, you're saying they are wrong. To the point that you are saying that if they choose to do something that you have a preference against you can hold them accountable. If they rape in person and you believe that is immoral but they don't you don't get to let them have that difference of opinion. It's not the same as having a different set opinion on what is most beautiful. And that's what you're not getting In order for there to be morality there has to be an objective standard. Otherwise morality doesn't actually exist.

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 “Moe’s Bar makes the best cocktails.” “Caddyshack is funniest movie” “Six Flags is the most fun amusement park.” “LeBron James is the best basketball player.” People talk about superlatives with subjective topics all the time. Yet you contend these words have no meaning?

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 You think the phrase “most beautiful” is meaningless? We’re looking at boutiques in a flower shop and I tell you “That boutique is the most beautiful” you’d reply “What do you mean by that?” I submit that OF COURSE you’d know. You might not agree, but my meaning would be clear.

@ChristIsComing5 What do you consider a good time to not believe in Jesus?

Really terrible time to not believe in Jesus.

@Ash1138 @McNasty “There are no good people” is just about the least Christ-like thing one can say.

@McNasty There are no good people. All of us live in sin and are depraved; separated from God. But God has given us all a free gift of salvation that He bought with His own life. No one is going to heaven based on works. Not one person deserves it. Jesus is a life raft. Get in.

question: if god is real, would he be more accepting of an athiest that is a good person over a christian who's a bad person?

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 There is not objective standard for beauty. Do you find the phrase “most beautiful” to be irrelevant?

No we can't agree on that definition. If you have no objective standard then the phrase most good is an irrelevant phrase. What is good? What is bad? How did you determine that what you personally prefer is most good? And how did you determine that someone who has a different preference than you isn't what is actually most good? You run into the same problem. When you save it it is subjective, then you're saying that there is no such thing as what is most good, it's just a preference that one person has over another and you can't save it when you think is most good is actually most good over what someone else thinks is most good. When you deal with good and bad and right and wrong those must have something objective behind them or they don't actually exist.

@EllaFlash @billym2521 2/ So you randomly saying stuff like “You need Jesus” is completely meaningless. I couldn’t genuinely believe that even if I want to. Because, yet again… 👉 Belief is not a choice! Since I care about truth I care about evidence. And you don’t provide any.

@EllaFlash @billym2521 1/ Truth is that which comports with reality. So, yes, if God exists in reality then God’s existence would be truth. The thing is, we are each on a journey in which we’re working out with comports with reality. And as I keep telling you: 👉 Belief is not a choice!

The Corinthians were CARNAL (1 Cor 3:1-3). Paul calls them "babes IN CHRIST." Saved. Positionally secure. Practically a mess. Works ≠ evidence of salvation. — Bibleline Ministries

@Infectd2 @Orchidoptera @mattvanswol @RedGhostLover @BernieSanders “They are not…” So you agree. The US is currently is both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. What’s the issue then?

@OpenlyReasoned @Orchidoptera @mattvanswol @RedGhostLover @BernieSanders They are not... Until you retards do away with the only safeguards we have against mob rule. One being the electoral college. You guys play dumb but you are intentionally obfuscating the reality of what the racist Democrats seek. Political segregation.

The damage from a reactionary Supreme Court: Citizens United allows billionaires to buy elections. Ending Roe v. Wade takes away a woman's right to control her body. Louisiana v. Callais strips voting rights away from Black Americans. Our rights are under attack. FIGHT BACK.

@trippcircuit @bthacker90 @CuriosityonX So even according to you the universe as a whole isn’t fine tuned for life. We’re only talking about the infinitesimally tiny part Earth occupies. Wouldn’t that indicate that planets are randomly “tuned” in a bunch of ways and we just happened to develop on this one?

@OpenlyReasoned @bthacker90 @CuriosityonX It is fine tuned for like HERE!

If the BIG BANG started everything, what existed before it?

@EllaFlash @billym2521 Except I’m neither leading anyone anywhere nor engaging in vain philosophy. I’m looking at reality. And in reality belief is not a choice. As I’ve explained to you. Making “change your mind and believe” useless advice. I couldn’t genuinely do that even if I wanted to.

@OpenlyReasoned @billym2521 @frameworklove We're done, you have clearly demonstrated that you are an unbeliever and are leading others to hell with you by your vain philosophies. I'll be praying for you to repent (metanoeo/metanoia) change your mind and believe the gospel of our salvation.

@ManteawPkay @ThinkingGhana @Mergice @koboateng Everything you wrote depends upon the false assumption that the universe as it is was an inevitable outcome. It’s the equivalent of observing that Jim Smith won a lottery and then claiming the lottery was fine tuned for Jim Smith to win it.

@OpenlyReasoned @ThinkingGhana @Mergice @koboateng for example, the preciseness of gravity, if it were too strong stars would have burnt too quickly, and if it were too weak, stars wouldn’t even have formed. Also if electromagnetic and nuclear forces were not precise, atoms couldn’t have formed thereby preventing matter formation

The Word.

@ManteawPkay @ThinkingGhana @Mergice @koboateng The universe is expanding now. That doesn’t mean it always was. And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to this expanding universe. There are evidence-supported models for what the universe might have been like before the Big Bang. Eg the Big Bounce model.

@OpenlyReasoned @ThinkingGhana @Mergice @koboateng There is evidence actually, for example, the universe keeps expanding, indicating a point from which the expansion began. Also, if the universe was infinite it would violated the second law of thermodynamics, and so on. For the universe being fine tuned,the evidence is seen in..

@Tampa_Egret @wrapologetics @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 I get it. I suppose I’d respond by pointing out that, whether or not there’s some God that has some law for humans, morality is still subjective. That is, God could make a law and you could still judge that law to be immoral. Legality ≠ Morality

@OpenlyReasoned @wrapologetics @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 Or at least there is no evidence for that. That is what Wrap means when he says, "We live in a universe with morality". He thinks there is some objective moral law existing over & above what human beings think. His problem is he can't demonstrate that any such moral law exists.

@trippcircuit @bthacker90 @CuriosityonX Except from everything we can see the universe is decidedly NOT fine tuned for life. The universe is massive. Life within it seems exceedingly rare.

@bthacker90 @CuriosityonX As if ANY evidence would be enough. How much proof do you need? It is all around you. The universe is fine tuned for life.

@ManteawPkay @ThinkingGhana @Mergice @koboateng Except there is no evidence that shows it had a beginning. Nor is there evidence that the universe was fine tuned.

@ThinkingGhana @Mergice @koboateng The universe doesn’t “just exist” for no reason. Evidence shows that it had a beginning. And given how fine tuned the universe is, it is logical to infer a creator

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 2/ …and so I think it’s more clear using “moral” and “immoral.” Morality, I’d say, is determining what choice in a particular situation creates the most good. Can we agree on that for a definition?

@wrapologetics @Tampa_Egret @QuayeRoyal @__lilith666 1/ I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think perhaps you’re conflating different senses of “right” and “wrong.” Those can be objective descriptors (eg “1+1=3 is wrong”) or subjective (eg “Eating ice cream for dinner is wrong”) or outcome-focused (eg “You took a wrong turn”)…