|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2005 01:17:44 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by stormy:
I cannot understand why the pharmacist (or anyone else) would be surprised that the drug was stolen. The man wanted to save his wife's life. I just do not think it is human nature to let your wife die when you know you can save her (even if you have to do something wrong).
He offered money and to pay the rest later, the pharmacist was unreasonable IMO. The man is not a bad person, he tried to do the right thing by getting all the money he could, and it failed, his next move is obvious. |
That is why it comes down to character. By saving his wife's life though, he just added more pressure on her by going to jail. There will be fines and penalties to pay and he will lose his job. All your decisions snowball in some way or another. What will she do the next time? |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:17:56 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A deist says, "the rightest morality is the one which perfectly matches the morality of God". A secularist says, "the rightest morality is one which perfectly matches....(I need you to fill in the blank here)" |
.... my own particular brand of belief or morals..
Just because someone is NOT a Deist doesn't mean they have no belief in right or wrong. All are different, deists don't all have the same beliefs either. Or even the same Gods sometimes.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:19:54 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Originally posted by stormy:
I cannot understand why the pharmacist (or anyone else) would be surprised that the drug was stolen. The man wanted to save his wife's life. I just do not think it is human nature to let your wife die when you know you can save her (even if you have to do something wrong).
He offered money and to pay the rest later, the pharmacist was unreasonable IMO. The man is not a bad person, he tried to do the right thing by getting all the money he could, and it failed, his next move is obvious. |
That is why it comes down to character. By saving his wife's life though, he just added more pressure on her by going to jail. There will be fines and penalties to pay and he will lose his job. All your decisions snowball in some way or another. What will she do the next time? |
I would rather take the punishment of doing ALL I can to save her, then to take the pain of not doing enough.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 01:20:30.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:21:42 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Since quantum physics prove that only and outside observer to space-time can prove truth, pure truth can only come from that observer, or God. If there is no outside observer, all truth is coexistent, and is thus non-existent. |
I haven't heard of this. Do you have any references? Honestly curious. :) |
Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle", Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem", and Schrodinger's "Theory of Superposition", all part of the discipline of Quantum Mechanics (not physics) touch on elements of this.
Very loosely speaking, Heisenberg tells us we can never precisely measure anything because its state changes during the act of measurement; Gödel tells us nothing can be proven within a system because at some level the system's rules must be self-referential; Schrodinger tells us that we can never know with certainty the "unbiased outcome" of a sequence of events because the act of observation effects the outcome.
Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" (a truly fascinating book) makes the following comment:
How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.
The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 05:42:45. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:26:28 AM · #105 |
Gödel brings up the Matrix argument - how do you know we're not just in the Matrix?
My answer will always be: "who cares? I see what my eyes see, I feel what my body feels and I touch what my sense touch. If someone can prove to me that there is something else, I'll discuss it. If not, there is nothing to say about what may be possible or likely outside of our perception." Reality is what your 5 senses describe - anything we discuss outside of reality has bases in imagination.
Anyone who wishes to debate the Matrix theory - that we may not exist here in this time and place - I'm sorry I have nothing further to discuss with you on this topic.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:29:56 AM · #106 |
I would to but it adds stress to her. She is in bad health and now you sit in jail. In two weeks she needs more medicine. What do you do then?
It is an impossible question to answer here, this is all subjective, so it must be a truth. lol +) cyclops is out GOOD NIGHT NOW |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:31:44 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Reality is what your 5 senses describe - anything we discuss outside of reality has bases in imagination. |
I take it the sound a dog whistle makes is not "real" then? I wouldn't know, since I can't hear. In any event MY reality must be quite a bit different than YOURS me being deaf and all? Am I entitled to call MY reality "real", or do I have to give deference to yours, as being more complete, even though I can't verify this and have to take it on hearsay (so to speak)?
See where that leads us?
R.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 01:32:36. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:32:29 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Gödel brings up the Matrix argument - how do you know we're not just in the Matrix?
My answer will always be: "who cares? I see what my eyes see, I feel what my body feels and I touch what my sense touch. If someone can prove to me that there is something else, I'll discuss it. If not, there is nothing to say about what may be possible or likely outside of our perception." Reality is what your 5 senses describe - anything we discuss outside of reality has bases in imagination.
Anyone who wishes to debate the Matrix theory - that we may not exist here in this time and place - I'm sorry I have nothing further to discuss with you on this topic. |
That is a whole new thread on new age mumbo jumbo. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:41:49 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A deist says, "the rightest morality is the one which perfectly matches the morality of God". A secularist says, "the rightest morality is one which perfectly matches....(I need you to fill in the blank here)" |
.... my own particular brand of belief or morals..
Just because someone is NOT a Deist doesn't mean they have no belief in right or wrong. All are different, deists don't all have the same beliefs either. Or even the same Gods sometimes. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
to the dr. the secularist can say "goodness." I am not a sucularist as I believe to be the outcome of a higher force.
Now, about good and bad. To say that ine does not believe in good or bad is tantamount to saying that one can steal because we deem it right. We can kill our neighbor if we wish or take his property. We can rape a person. Big chaos. Right and wrong is generally self evident to the searching individual. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:42:07 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Since quantum physics prove that only and outside observer to space-time can prove truth, pure truth can only come from that observer, or God. If there is no outside observer, all truth is coexistent, and is thus non-existent. |
What in the heck does quantum mechanics have to do with "truth"? Quantum mechanics is about uncertainty, probability and the behavior of matter at the atomic level. Where do you get the idea that quantum mechanics "prove" that "truth" can only come from and outside observer? What do you mean by "truth" being "coexistent" if there is no external observer? Please define "coexistent". |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 06:09:24 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Since quantum physics prove that only and outside observer to space-time can prove truth, pure truth can only come from that observer, or God. If there is no outside observer, all truth is coexistent, and is thus non-existent. |
What in the heck does quantum mechanics have to do with "truth"? Quantum mechanics is about uncertainty, probability and the behavior of matter at the atomic level. Where do you get the idea that quantum mechanics "prove" that "truth" can only come from and outside observer? What do you mean by "truth" being "coexistent" if there is no external observer? Please define "coexistent". |
The point goes something like this: in MY belief system "A" supersedes "B". I am internally consistent in this; my logic, so to speak, cannot be faulted. In YOUR belief system "B" takes precedence over "A", and you also can bolster this with impeccable logic. Our belief systems are mutually exclusive, and our logical constructions are based on different axioms, or "postulates". Neither of us can "prove" the other wrong, nor can either of us see any flaw in our own logic.
Furthermore, no matter how much we BELIEVE in our own "system", we cannot prove the system by using the system itself to generate a proof; the proof (if indeed it exists) has to come from outside the system. All logical systems are self-referential; you have to accept their premises on faith, because you cannot prove any system's postulates from within the system.
Take geometry for example; we all "learn" it in school. What we are taught is "Euclidean Geometry" and we are conditioned to accept it as "true", which in real-world practical terms it iS, for us on this earth. But the geometry is based on certain postulates, from which all proofs of theorems are taken; there are five of these postulates.
But that's not the only geometry. There are other, non-Euclidean geometries, and they have different postulates and they are internally consistent and they have specific, real-world uses that are valid; they are also "true". Two of these geometries are Spherical Geometry and Hyperbolic Geometry. And they do not agree with Euclidean Geometry. In fact, they cannot be brought into agreement with it, because they use different postulates. And in terms of Euclidean Geometry, of course, Spherical Geometry is not "true" (and vice versa) but they coexist in the real world with practical applications of each evident everywhere. These are coexistent truths.
You might say "Yes, but that's math, and we're not talking about math!" just as you did, basically, about Quantum Mechanics. But math is the language that we use to describe reality, and it is a much more precise language than words can ever be. Physicists are now working at deeper and deeper levels to understand the underlying basis of material reality, and it is simply TRUE, whether you and I can comprehend it or not, that at a core level "reality" is based on uncertainty, and this has profound implications for the nature of "truth" as we conceive it.
Robt.
Please, math peoples, don't nail me too hard on this; it's been a long time since I studied geometries or physics, and this is just a layman's attempt to illustrate a very troubling/interesting aspect of our reality. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 08:57:37 AM · #112 |
Thank you all very much for your individual arguments.
I was part of the small, but not outspoken minority in class. This discussion carried on through much of the day, with no one budging from their initial opinion. Which I suppose coincides with bear_music's final statement regarding an individual's attachment to a particular belief system.
I was skeptical of bringing this question onto DPC for fear of what happens to most psychological discussions here. But, I would like to thank everyone for stating their viewpoints, and questioning the viewpoints of others in a respectable manner. I was very surprised this morning to see how far along this discussion had come. We went through Utilitarianism, religion, quantum physics(!?), and many metaphors for more "realistic" situations involving what is right and wrong.
So, Thank you all again,
-Max |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 10:28:29 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Explain how quantum physics deduces that or give us a source. Sounds like Pat Robertson on Sci-Fi. |
BINGO.... quantum physics has been defined |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 11:34:59 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A deist says, "the rightest morality is the one which perfectly matches the morality of God". A secularist says, "the rightest morality is one which perfectly matches....(I need you to fill in the blank here)" |
.... my own particular brand of belief or morals..
Just because someone is NOT a Deist doesn't mean they have no belief in right or wrong. All are different, deists don't all have the same beliefs either. Or even the same Gods sometimes. |
I don't doubt this Ombra. I have no problem with secularists having a brand of morality. What I fail to understand is how a secularist holds his/her beliefs higher than another's; yet we do it all the time. How can we justify going to war and killing members of another society because they are "fascist" (Nazi) or "extreme militants" (Taliban)? Why do we try at all to convince another of our point of view? Women's rights in the Islamic world? Female circumcision? I'm sure many many western citizens react vigorously against such ideas. But what right do we have to do so? |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 11:46:32 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
To the first question, you would have to have 10 people define rape. Once they all agree on the instances that could be called rape, you can decide if it is right or wrong. Also, using the term rape to begin with is loaded. |
I won't let you off this easily. The term is not "loaded". I simply mean "forcing a sexual act upon an unconsenting individual". My question to you is whether an individual who feels justified in such an act is "as correct" as someone who feels such an act is unjustified. I can tell from your answer above ("Once they all agree on the instances that could be called rape, you can decide if it is right or wrong") that you do not feel this is true. But why isn't it true? Because YOU feel that way? or because such an act is wrong no matter how one feels about it? |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:21:16 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
To the first question, you would have to have 10 people define rape. Once they all agree on the instances that could be called rape, you can decide if it is right or wrong. Also, using the term rape to begin with is loaded. |
I won't let you off this easily. The term is not "loaded". I simply mean "forcing a sexual act upon an unconsenting individual". My question to you is whether an individual who feels justified in such an act is "as correct" as someone who feels such an act is unjustified. I can tell from your answer above ("Once they all agree on the instances that could be called rape, you can decide if it is right or wrong") that you do not feel this is true. But why isn't it true? Because YOU feel that way? or because such an act is wrong no matter how one feels about it? |
Okay, in 'my morality' forcing anyone to do anything is wrong. Even forcing someone to eat a piece of cake is wrong. And you can get into degrees here, but are there degrees of wrongness or rightness? Aren't you either right or wrong? ;) I get the idea that that is the answer you are looking for and I disagree with it. I live in a world of gray. And I think most people do. My point in all this is only to point out that circumstances, timing, and people involved form the morality of that moment. Much like the concentration camp, the husband, and many other instances, morality is fluid and dynamic. It is not set in stone. Each person must decide at each moment what they believe is the moral course of action. They also must decide if they should take it.
And, in reply to your answer to Ombra: I'm glad 'secularists' can have a morality but I'm surprised that you believe a belief in God gives someone a higher moral authority. I don't understand you question about War. The Taliban believes they are 'more moral' due to their religious beliefs then westerners are. Does that make their actions right? wrong? Maybe, in their eyes, they are right and we are wrong. I do not try to convince others of my point of view. I just try to point out that their are other points of view. As any nation or group of people who are bound together by a common ideology, we believe we are right. That is why the abortion debate and capital punishment debate rages on in our country. Which side of either is right? How do you know? Because you have a God and I don't?
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:58:41 PM · #117 |
I think maybe you are hanging up on the idea that someone can say, "I believe in God, therefore my belief is right." I'm actually taking more of a step back...
A system which includes a deity, can have an absolute morality to measure an action by. An analogy is that we know how long a meter is because we used to have an "official meter" sitting in France in a safe somewhere. (I think now the definition is different, but there is still a definition). We can take all other meter sticks and measure them against this official meter. Some sticks will be closer (and thus more right) and some stick won't. If we wanted we could rank all the meter sticks in the world in order of their "goodness" at being a meter stick. In morality, a deity (and incidently only a monotheistic deity) can act as this official meter stick.
Now let me take a moment here to say that all of us who believe in God could be wrong. There may be no God. In that case, the system still logically allows for absolute morality, but the reality is it's all bubkus. (But note that it is logically possible to have that absolute measure, that's the important part.)
Secularists have strived to come up with different moral systems. We all have one. I have no doubt you have a complicated set of rules to evaluate right from wrong. This is your meter stick. It is highly unlikely that another person has exactly the same set of rules. Their meter stick is different. What I am proposing is that in secularism there is no official meter stick. So if your morality meter stick measures an act as 3.14 meters (yes, I'm getting quite mixed in my analogy here) and your neighbor's measures an act as 3.19 meters, both are correct. The problem is that nobody acts like this. Instead, we often try to point out why the other person's meter stick is less correct than our's.
CS Lewis, philosopher, former atheist, then Christian, basically deduced the existence of God from this very argument. Succinctly:
1) Without a God, all moralities are equal.
2) Nobody believes, at their base, that all moralities are equal.
3) This must be evidence for the existence of God.
This debate isn't really about God so you can disregard that last paragraph if you want. It's an interesting read you can come across in the first 40 pages of his book Mere Christianity. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:02:38 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Without a God, all moralities are equal.
2) Nobody believes, at their base, that all moralities are equal.
3) This must be evidence for the existence of God.
|
1) False. Setting God's law as the de facto standard is ridiculously over simplifying "equality" in morality.
2) False. Read Sri Ramakrishna. "Many Paths to the Same Summit"
3) See 1 & 2.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:14:38 PM · #119 |
Okay, by having a diety you have a measuring stick. But, I have no view of the measuring stick so I just have to guess at what is close to what the measuring stick might be. And so does Joe Bob, cause he can't see it either. And while John has seen the measuring stick, Mark knows there's a measuring stick but thinks his measuring stick is more accurate.
In other words, those who believe in a diety can say they follow the morals of that deity there is nothing that says their use of the rules is correct.
For example, God says though shalt not kill. God also says something about an eye for an eye and just punishment and such (my biblical references are a little fuzzy). So, one group believes God's moral stick includes a thou shalt not kill clause while another group believes that thou shalt not kill except in the case of... (fill in the blank here. It could be punishment, promoting the word of God, anything).
My point is that an inch is an inch only if you are looking directly at the measuring stick. And, if you are viewing it from anything other than directly in front of it, your view will be different. Who is to decide who is viewing it correctly, from straight on?
And essentially, from a black and white perspective, all morals are equal. But being human, we have the ability to see gray also.
You might be interested in reading Plato's writing on Virtue (Meno).
edited for grammar, spelling, clarity, coffee stains...
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 13:16:55.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:20:36 PM · #120 |
Yes, I'll certainly agree with you that it gets messy in the real world. ;)
My ultimate point is that ther IS a right and wrong. (Even if Joe Bob and John have differing views. One of them is closer to right than the other.) So we are all trying to discover what the true meter stick is. We have all fallen short in varying amounts. But some are still closer than others. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:28:20 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Without a God, all moralities are equal.
2) Nobody believes, at their base, that all moralities are equal.
3) This must be evidence for the existence of God.
|
1) False. Setting God's law as the de facto standard is ridiculously over simplifying "equality" in morality.
2) False. Read Sri Ramakrishna. "Many Paths to the Same Summit"
3) See 1 & 2. |
I'd never allow your first sentence in a debate. You are gonna have to explain more for me to even respond. I don't see how saying God's morality is the standard even speaks to "equality" in morality. It does the opposite. It's a standard by which moralities are "unequal".
I commonly have this problem when debating theology with atheists. They feel that I accept the existence of God as absolutely axiomatic. I don't. Either I am right or wrong about the existence of God. If there is a God, and that god is "personal", then there is a standard for morality. End of statement. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It's like gravity. It existed far before people were around. Nobody needed to "believe in it" for it to exist.
My whole point about morality and theology is that a worldview which believes in God has a place for an absolute standard of morality. (and once again the whole worldview could be wrong by the nonexistence of God) A worldview which does not believe in a God has, according to my position, NO place for an absolute standard of morality. Nobody here has convinced me otherwise. Forget about theology for a minute, rather work on explaining my big question. Can an absolute standard of morality exist in a secular worldview? |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:44:57 PM · #122 |
Dr. Achoo,
Your first premise, "believing in God provides an absolute standard of morality" is flawed. Anything postulated from that is necessarily flawed (maybe correct, but still flawed logic).
I have a God. Let's call him Zud. Zud tells me its good to kill. In fact, with Zud, killing in his name is a path to sainthood. I now have an absolute standard to follow.
You are requesting validation of belief from those who's beliefs vary from yours but you cannot validate your own beliefs.
Each religion, each point of view, has its own absolute standard. Because you believe that yours is validated by your beliefs (a circular argument) you cannot accept one different from your own as equally valid.
And, you can state that there is an absolute standard when one believes in God (any God?) but I have seen no evidence of such in your statements. A large group of people can agree to something but that doesn't make it exist. Or true. Or moral. Dragons, flat earth theory, slavery. A consensus doesn't validate anything.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:50:28 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A worldview which does not believe in a God has, according to my position, NO place for an absolute standard of morality....Can an absolute standard of morality exist in a secular worldview? |
Of course it can - what about God makes it an absolute standard for morality? Our deference to it? His authority? What, if not our pre-conceived beliefs, makes God a standard of authority? Humans generally believe it is not right to kill another for no reason. This is why we accept beliefs into our worldview that agree with us. The other religions, such as that of Zud in dahkota's example, die off or are "not accepted" as part of our morality because they do not fit into what we already believe.
Why do you need a God to tell you what is right? I'm not a strict atheist - I'm a RamaChristian. I don't need some God who's never spoken to me to tell me how to behave in MY reality. If he wishes to tell me so, I implore him to. Until he does, I'll act by the best beliefs I hold.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 02:05:43 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Reality is what your 5 senses describe - anything we discuss outside of reality has bases in imagination. |
I take it the sound a dog whistle makes is not "real" then? I wouldn't know, since I can't hear. In any event MY reality must be quite a bit different than YOURS me being deaf and all? Am I entitled to call MY reality "real", or do I have to give deference to yours, as being more complete, even though I can't verify this and have to take it on hearsay (so to speak)? |
Reality is what your 5 senses describe. You do not have 5 senses, bear. Is it possible that there are 6 senses and some people can perceive something 'extra' than the majority of us? Sure - prove it. I can "prove" sound through sound waves, ultrasounds, etc - if you play a recorded sentence on a tape (in English), I can tell you what that sentence says 5 years from now because of sound. If someone could make a machine for monitoring ghosts and the only place I could 'see' the ghosts was on the machine, I would believe in them. So the reality in which the ghost machine has a 6th sense - that's more complete than my reality, yes. The machine allows my working sense - sight - to perceive what I cannot otherwise. Your working senses (touch) must allow you to perceive very very loud sound waves. I do not believe you can go to a concert and NOT shake physically. It's just too much 'sound' (experienced by a different sense).
You do bring up a very good point. Do you not believe in sound though? If I don't believe in the Matrix, prove it to me. Disappear into the Matrix in front of my eyes. Let my sense of sight prove your sense of the Matrix. Then I shall believe it.
I have 5 senses - God is unable or unwilling to appeal to ANY of my 5 senses in a recognizable form. I don't hear God in my ears, I do not touch God, I do not see the form of a God (I don't want to hear anything about "god is in nature, in beauty, everywhere blahblah), I can't taste God nor smell God. If I tell you there's an ormswartz on your head - you will be confused until I tell you that an ormswartz is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, invisible, inaudible creature that lives on everyone's head. He's there - on your head, right now! An ormswartz! Now, that's a tautology - "so what if he's there?"
What if I made a machine that measured ormswartz levels however? I showed you a graphical representation of the ormswartz and I created this machine to talk to ormswartz's and we had a conversation with one via the machine. Does it exist? YES. Does it exist today? We don't know - but I bet it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 02:18:56 PM · #125 |
I'll give this one more try. I think I'm talking past you two at this point. Perhaps our worldviews are so different we can't begin to understand the other position.
A few words about God: The only god who would allow for an absolute morality would be one that a) created the universe and everything in it and b) is moral (that is, is personal, interacting with his creation). With these qualities, morality would be a creation of God just like gravity, quantum mechanics, and the properties of light. If we say that morality is "outside God", then we are saying there is something God did not create and why not make that thing God instead of our current one?
Whenever I hear arguments about Zud (or in the last series of arguments I had it was a pink unicorn), I know you are totally not understanding what I'm saying. Just saying "I believe in Zud and this is his morality" does not make one correct. If Zud doesn't exist, it's all balderdash. At the same time, it is logically consistent to say:
a) Zud exists and he is the source of morality.
b) My morality is closer to Zud's than your's.
c) My morality is better than your's.
The logic stands, even if the whole framework is crap. Of course, I believe there is a reality. This reality exists where I believe in it or not. This reality either contains a personal God who is the source of morality or it doesn't. If it does, then it matters not one wit what we argue about here, the truth is that absolute morality springs from this God. If it doesn't, then it also doesn't matter one wit, there is no God who is the seat of morality.
My logical argument is this (once again):
If reality does not have God, then reality also does not have absolute morality. It is a logical impossibility.
Give me an argument to prove that statement wrong. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 06:36:36 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 06:36:36 PM EDT.
|
