Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2011-03-24T18:12:55Z

Tedrick79: /* Yes and No */

{{debate}}
== Define Terms ==
Live: To retain the chemical, mental, and spiritual processes necessary to remain responsive to people and God.
Should be changed to "responsive to surroundings" - [[User:trig|trig]].

Code of Morality: Some set of absolute rules by which a man may live, based on worldview.(Feel free to edit definitions)

[[User:Mawest217|Mawest217]] 13:39, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== No ==
'''No'''. What is [[morality]], after all, but a code of ''values''? A man without morality has no values. But surely every man values ''something.'' Even if all that a man values is himself, and what will make him happy, he still has values. With values comes morality.

Thus a man might ''claim'' to be [[Amoralism|amoral]], but in fact he does live by a code of morality that he himself has invented.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

There's a Haiku in that:
Man might claim to be
amoral, but in fact he
does live by a code.
[[User:Marym|Marym]] 18:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Agreed, although I would further add that an 'amoral' man is still kind of a xxxx. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]], watch your language on this family-friendly site.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:57, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::: Sorry, just trying to inject some levity into the debate. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:00, 12 November 2007 (EST)

My take on this is that morality has both an innate and an encultured aspect. The existence of a moral sense is "hardwired" like the ability to learn language. But although we are all born with the potential to develop as moral agents, the course that this development takes is partially determined by the experiences we have as we learn and grow. Theoretically, an individual might grow up without moral training of any kind. However, I would argue that all human societies possess a volume of more or less explicit moral teachings. Thus, even a society which habitually indulges in practises that we might find entirely immoral, does so in accordance with its own moral code. This is not to say that all moral codes are equal. The other (and more difficult) aspect of morality is the question of moral development: the morals of societies change over time, and, in particular, it is an undeniable fact that individuals and groups arise in all historical societies claiming to be in possession of a higher morality than the one that curently prevails. We thus always find ourselves in a marketplace of competing moralities, and it is not easy, as any conservative will acknowledge, to lay claim to moral infalibility: There are always alternative points of view. In Western societies, the existence of an alleged "moral vacuum" is largely the result of the absence of a centrally prescribed code of morals in certain spheres of life (above all sexuality and religion) where one did exist - at least nominally - until recently. Nonetheless, a broad consensus does continue to exist over many moral issues. [[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]] 17:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not. You don't have to be religious to be moral or have a moral code. There are people who think morally it's ok to kill certain groups of people for whatever stupid reason they have, that's their moral. Although it's in opposition to all religions and philosophies. Morals are what one makes them, no one doesn't have them, sometimes people just don't share the same morals. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that [the determination of] the way of a man is not in himself; it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps. (Jeremiah 10:23, ''Amplified'') [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 19:39, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

===postmodern morality===
In the Postmodern world that we live in, our morality is defined by whatever feels right and works for that individual person. There is no central absolute standard in order to judge. However, that is a defeating system, because what if my morality does not match up with someone elses? What if I decide to go rob a store, and that was genuinely what I thought was right to do. Of course that's an extreme example, because not many people in their right mind genuinely think it is the right thing to do. Even criminals know it's wrong, they just don't care. But where does this sense of morality come from? Our postmodern culture says that all viewpoints should be tolerated and no One should find dominance. However, those that hold to that position are philosophically contradicting themselves because they are enforcing postmodernism (their viewpoint) on everyone else. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The way the topic is phrased is an adjunct to one of the pillars of theistic-conservatism; the idea that morality is bequeathed from some (or many) institutions who "teach" mankind how to behave amongst ourselves. Though obviously ludicrous, as evidenced by the fact that (pre-religious) civilization would have never survived to it's current state without a rudimentary collective conscience banding communities together with an innate sense of right and wrong, it is not difficult to see how this becomes a standard principle of the right. -JBall

===semantic===
This debate depends on whether there is a universal 'right' way to behave in all situations, independent of any opinions on what it might be. I would argue that athiests, such as myself have ethics rather than morals, since their values of right and wrong stem from a regard for others as opposed to a rigid dogma. Consider last week in Iraq, a Kurdish girl was stoned to death by a mob, possibly including her own family, because she was judged to have broken her religions moral laws about sex. Evey member of that mob was behaving morally according to their religion and values, but few without a religion would say they behaved ethically. The Old Testament demands death by stoning for a girl in simmilar circumstances (disobeyed her parents, went with a guy of another creed against their wishes), but few modern Christians would actually advocate following the written word of the Bible, they'd make an interpretation of the dogma - the absolute moral - as they (arbitrarily) see fit. Morality is always subjective, but those without religion do not pretend to base their judgements of behavior on bronze age writings, but rather on a philosophy or social contract. [[User:Marym|Marym]] 19:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===everybody else does it===
I agree with no. Even if the code of morality isn't religious based, there is still an idea of what is right or wrong and people conform to the idea of society as their basic moral code. Just as animals raise their young to do certain things like hide from a predator or attack their prey, society teaches people to behave in certain ways such as not killing others or not stealing or lying because there are negative results. It's the negative result that keeps a person "honest".
Regardless of whether a particular person follows the morality of a religon or not, he/she will follow the morality of the people in his/her own group. If he/she is a member of a church, then of course, the church's morality determines the persons. If the person is a member of a gang, then the morality of the gang will determine his/her morality.
It could be argued there is no universal right or wrong, only actions perceived as right or wrong and those make up the morality of the group.
Some cultures see abuse of wives to be moral, others see it as an atrocity. Some cultures see murder as acceptable if its against an opposing force, others see it as wrong no matter what. Some feel it is moral to raise animals for food, others feel animals shouldn't be used as food at all. Morality is in the 'eye of the beholder' in that way. Whatever the group of people that a person is a member of sees as moral will be the moral standards of that person. History has determined most of our morals as a society and the Bible has determined our morals as Christians. The two don't always overlap. --- John

===Animals don't have a moral code===
Humans are animals. All non-human animals live without a moral code. They have instinctive respect for the dead, and other such things that may be considered moral, but they have no moral code. These animals have survived just fine through the years. Since humans are just animals like any other, I see no reason why humans could not live without a moral code. -loveothersasyourself

I disagree: non-humans have a true sense of right and wrong, based on rules that are partly instinctive and partly learned. The only thing they do not have is written codes. Anyone who has trained a dog can tell you. A dog will, on occasion, show remorse for transgressions that nobody has discovered yet. A puppy will accept the fact that it has to learn rules of conduct from the elders and continue to uphold them when it becomes an elder. -[[User:trig|trig]]

===Define Live===
How do you define live? If live is defined as the action of retaining the chemical processes required for life, then yes, you can live without a code of morality. If we define live as to enjoy life here on earth, than no, you cannot have true happiness without a code of morality. If we define live as to have eternal life, than no, you cannot live without having some code of morality. [[User:Mawest217|Mawest217]] 13:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

<big>'''Define it first'''</big>

Some people keeping saying that they can be a moral/good person without God or religion. First, I want someone to define moral, or what is a "good person". This term "good person" sounds so good that no one ever bother to define it. I afraid no one can define it unless you have some standard about it. For moral, who is to say lying or killing is wrong unless there is a set of rules say it is wrong? Who is the rule giver? I mean, unless you fall in the culture of moral relativism, that there is no absolute, and so there is no way to tell between right and wrong. By the way, bible says God already put His laws into our heart so we can know right and wrong. But often time because of our sin covered our heart, we because foolish about it.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 11:55, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Yes ==
Morality is a set of laws that determines the difference between right and wrong. Morality generally comes from religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judism, etc. Morality often changes through time; what is deemed moral now may be vastly different than what is considered moral in the future. Many argue that it is indeed possible to live without morals, as morals are not usually found among other species. This, however, can easily be disputed and the idea is flawed.

Double Edge
{{Unsigned|Double Edge}}

::I have no religion. I also have a small blue card in a draw, labeled 'National Blood Service' and printed with my donor number. I am both an atheist, and a moral person, as evidenced by my willingness to walk half an hour across town and then return a little bit lighter and less fit for the benefit of others. I myself am proof that morality does not require religion. But in case one isn't enough, I am sure there will be several tens of millions of atheists who would be willing to testify to their own morality.

To save time, the standard counter for this like of argument is to substitute a narrower definition of morality, one which is sufficiently narrow and full of arbitary restrictions derived from religion that only a follower of that religion could meet it. You may, for example, argue that it doesn't matter if someone is a charitable blood-donor, campaigner for the poor, kind, loving, polite and a perfect example of all things good - if they arn't Christian, they cant be moral. Its circular, and its pathetic logic, but it works when fed through a confirmation bias. - Suricou
:::You have in fact shown that, though you believe in no [[God]], you still have values. Not everyone will accept those values as complete, but again, you have values. Your values are even more sophisticated than those of the purely self-centered man.
:::I did not ask whether man can live without [[God]]. He can, though I wouldn't advise it. Rather, I asked whether a man can live without ''values''. I maintain that ''every'' man has ''some'' standard of value, and therefore every man lives by ''some'' moral code.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Perhaps an athiest can live with values. But is it not possible for a man to do what has the highest utility for him. His values are not consistant this. His only purpose is survival of the fittest. Therefore he has no standard for morality. Therefore he lives without a code of morality.

Double Edge

:If you define morality merely as "a code of laws dictated by [[God]]," then I suppose you're right. But an [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] wouldn't agree with you. Objectivism says that a code of morality is ''any'' code of values that a man accepts ''by choice.''

:So I suppose everything depends entirely on what morality is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It reflects poorly on the editors of Conservapedia to be phrasing questions using "MAN" instead of "PERSON" considering we are in the year 2007. Women are not meekly pouring their husbands scotch while their men engage in intellectual discussions on your site. I assure you, you have many women readers whom you would be advised to address should you wish to be considered a reliable and unbiased resource. {{Unsigned|Valerie}}

:::"Man" in this context means "human", not "male". It's your duty to educate yourself, not to complain because others won't conform to your ignorant understanding of the word.

:This is a separate issue, but I use ''man'' to mean "any human being." I don't hold with surrendering the common-gender contexts of certain words, for no better reason than that they are "masculine" forms. For the record, I don't believe that a woman (that is, a female) can live without morality--that is, totally without values--any more than can a man (that is, a male).--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, think of all the serial killers and mass murderers that go on almost forever that seem to have no morals or real code of living. As long as there is evil in the world there will be a need for morals.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people. Is there an absolute moral code that we all must follow? And, if so, who decides what goes on that code? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Who is to say what is moral and immoral? These two concepts technically do not exist. Interesting.
{{Unsigned|Gesiwuj}}

Yes. Just ask the president. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 02:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Brief Aside ==

Heh heh. But that's not true; George Bush (both of them) did the best job they could, given the circumstances. What would you have done, given 9/11? Personally, I would've at least invaded Afghanistan, and I understand the concern about Iraq, though I wouldn't have nessarily made the same decisions. I don't condone (Ex) President Bush's actions, but I believe that he certainly did the best he could. --ConservatismisOK

== Yes (Cont.) ==

:``But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people.`` Historically, it often does, Dominican monks torturing and killing people during the Spanish Inquisition sincerely belived it was a moral *duty* of theirs, just as with Conquistadores slaughtering the peoples of South America. People seldom believe they are not (morally?) justified in their actions, no matter what those actions are. [[User:Marym|Marym]] 20:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::If your lack of understanding of this word doesn't meant that the concept doesn't exist, silly. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Double Edge, i am an atheist. I do not live in moral anarchy. I have very strong moral values. I do not kill, i think it is wrong to steal or to commit adultery and i think that tolerance is the greatest virtue. To suggest that simply because i belive that the scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a god, does not immediately mean that therefore i have no morals whatsoever, and you suggesting that it does causes me to feel slighted and misunderstood. Please think more carefully about what you are saying about another person before you say something so generalising again. Bolly Ottihw 18:16, 20 April 2007

Morlity can be seen as something like money. Money, really, does not exist. You cannot hold 'money' - you can hold an object of known value, but that is not money. You can hold currency - but what is it but paper and ink, or a piece of metal? Is money held in a bank, where it is nothing but bits in a computer? Money doesn't exist, and yet its still possible to buy things with it. Because, so long as people believe in it, it '''does''' exist - its existance comes only from that belief. Were everyone to suddenly stop accepting money tomorrow, money would simply disappear and all that currency return to being worthless paper. And morality, in the same way, does have a real existance - so long as enough people believe that it does, and are willing to act on that belief. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

I am an atheist. If there are no gods then there can be no absolute right and wrong. Without gods where could absolute values come from? If there are no absolute rights and wrongs there can be no morality because morality (in my view) cannot be a relative concept. What use is morality if mine can be fundamentally different to yours and neither is superior? That is not what I understand morality to mean. In the end, if one is an atheist, the best you can do is to put it down to a matter of taste. Isn't that all that's left? It is not to my taste to torture babies for fun (and I hope it's not to your taste either). I can think that my taste is better than yours but I can't prove it. Religious people regard that as a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs and they may be right. But that is not an argument for the existence of gods. Maybe the universe is just unsatisfactory in some ways. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Horace, why does non-existence of God imply non-existence of absolute values? --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:32, 17 November 2007 (EST)

===Semantics===
The debate question "Can any man live without some code of morality?" is more of a discussion topic that a debate question. That being said, I will play the game and treat this as actual debate:

I believe that any resolution to this debate would depend very heavily on the semantics. A "code" of morality denotes text, or minimally, language so specific that is could be dictated and recorded as text. So, if one admitted that the moral rules do not need to be codified, one would have to conclude "yes". Also, if one admitted that any man "lived" before written language, one would have to either conclude "yes" or hold that men are no longer as able as their predecessors.

The next word in the question that is critical to the debate is "without". The semantical question is 'What would be considered "with" a code?'. My best take on this is that 'with' implies that the written text be available to the man as a reference. Even if the man cannot read, it could still be "with" him if there were others that he could task to read it for him. But this may be too loose an interpretation. Wouldn't "with" also imply that the man considered the code to be of some positive value and be willing to conform at least some of his behavior to it?

Although the word "live" is also critical to the debate, I do not see it as being as pivotal as it may first appear. As "live" is defined, there is this "spiritual processes" requirement which itself begs for definition. Otherwise, one can conclude "no" simply by asserting that the required "spiritual processes" is something that evaporates without codified morality. I suspect that most people who would tend towards a "no" response, would also view all "spiritual processes" as being quite hardy - even to the point of being immortal.

--[[User:ScottB|ScottB]] 13:09, 3 December 2009 (EST)

== Yes and No ==

The question is whether it is possible to live without a moral ''code''. Absolutely. On the other hand there is the question of whether it is possible to live without ''morality''. I would say no. There are serial killers and people who do many evil things, but not living morally is different from living without morality. People cannot necessarily explain their morality; people may claim they have no morality; they may even believe it: that does not mean they are right. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:30, 17 November 2007 (EST)

People have a moral code inscribed into their brains. A frightful existence would be had if people had no moral code at all. Survive, yes. Animals survive without one. We would survive without one. Couldn't get anything more civilized than a pack or small tribe. I am with Andy on this one. Everyone has a moral code - they say 'should', 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil' -- all of these words are based on a universal moral code. You cannot say these words if you do not believe in a universal code. It would be illogical to do so. Because any code YOU might personally believe is reduced to an opinion along the lines of "my favorite color is blue" - which means zero to anyone else. Can I say that it is wrong for your favorite color to be blue? No. Can I say it is wrong for you to beat a child into the ground? Yes - not only can I say it I can hit you in the head with a brick if you do not cease from doing so. That is a universal code in action - we all know its wrong so we move to prevent it. -- Ted Griffith, 2011

Hydroplate Theory

2011-03-24T18:00:30Z

Tedrick79: /* Observations to explain */

The '''Hydroplate Theory''' of the [[Great Flood]] is the theoretical model, proposed by Dr. [[Walt Brown]], to explain the original composition of the [[Earth]], how the Great Flood occurred, and how the Flood changed the earth to its present configuration. Dr. Brown explains his theory in detail in his on-line book, ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood''.<ref name=Brown>Brown W, ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', Center for Scientific Creation, 1995-2008. <http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html></ref>

== Observations to explain ==
The Hydroplate Theory seeks to explain a number of observations, both Biblical and extra-Biblical. The Biblical explanations are found in Genesis chapters 6-8: a rupture of deep-underground springs ([[Hebrew]] '''כל-מעינת תהום''' or ''khal-mayanah tahown'', translated as "fountains of the great deep" in the [[KJV]]), a torrential rainfall lasting for forty days and nights, water covering the highest elevations then existing to a depth of more than twenty-five feet (fifteen long [[cubit]]s), and all this water covering the surface for 150 days and then receding, almost as if they had never been. The extra-Biblical explanations include the fitting-together of the [[continent]]s of the earth like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, the outlines of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge system, the findings of sedimentary rock and even marine fossils at the highest elevations, and the existence of [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. It also explains why water erosion (recent enough not to be blown away by the martian wind) has been found on the Mars, but no liquid water.

== Basic elements ==
The one basic element of the Hydroplate Theory is a model of the antediluvian earth. According to this model, the earth had a subcrustal ocean, as do three of the [[Galilean moons]] of [[Jupiter]]. This ocean was in a sealed chamber with multiple pillars holding up the earth's crust overhead. Beginning with the [[Fall of Man]], these pillars began to buckle, slowly at first, then somewhat faster. This buckling caused some parts of the crust to begin to settle, and this uneven settling created tensile stresses in the parts of the crust that did not settle.

Eventually the crust failed catastrophically, creating a seam at what is now the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This seam continued to break open until at length all of that water, previously confined under pressure, burst through to the surface. The crust was then ruptured, forming various crustal plates, or ''hydroplates'', that moved about or were shoved violently aside or into one another. This movement generated a great deal of heat, at levels that persist today under the earth.

== Sequence of events ==
The catastrophic failure began, as mentioned, at what is now the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the Americas once were joined with the rest of the continents in one continuous land mass. A tiny through-and-through crack appeared, and once this happened, it inevitably lengthened and broadened as the confined water burst through it. Eventually a seam opened nearly all the way around the earth, involving the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge system.

Most of the water thus released washed over all the land areas in a series of incredibly high and fast [[tsunami]]s. These great waves lifted up [[Noah's Ark]] and carried it with them. That the Ark, or indeed any vessel, could survive this event is a tribute to the Ark's divine design and to [[Noah]]'s consummate skill as a shipwright.

In addition, this water created a cascade that arced very high in the [[atmosphere]] and fell as rain, for forty days and nights, as the Bible says. This water would reach very high indeed, not only because it had been confined under pressure, but also because the ten-mile-thick crustal plates would "flap" with the water's passage and create pumping action and "water hammer" to drive the water even higher. Brown estimates that one percent of this water, together with vast quantities of mud and rock, achieved [[escape speed]] and persists today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, [[meteor]]oids, and the ice deposits that have already been demonstrated on the [[Moon]], the [[planet]] [[Mercury]], and most recently on the [[planet]] [[Mars]]. In addition, many of the ejected rocks may have bombarded the Moon and created many of its present features—although [[Russell Humphreys]]' magnetic-field model, combined with findings from samples returned by the crews of [[Apollo 15]] and [[Apollo 16]], suggest that the Moon was bombarded on two other occasions, neither of which coincided with the Flood.

The Americas were shoved violently to the west and opened a gap that persists today as the [[Atlantic Ocean]]. In the process, they formed two north-south mountain ranges (perpendicular to their direction of motion, naturally): the [[Appalachian Mountains]] in the eastern [[United States]], and the [[Rocky Mountains]] and [[Andes Mountains]] to the west of [[North America]] and [[South America]], respectively. To the Far East, the [[Asia]]n continent collided with the land masses of [[Europe]] and created the [[Himalayas]].

Directly opposite the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, depressions formed. These persist today as the [[Mariannas Trench]] and especially the [[Challenger Depth]], two of the deepest places in all the earth's [[ocean]]s.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2011-03-24T17:55:45Z

Tedrick79: /* A Brief Aside */

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2011-03-24T17:50:02Z

Tedrick79:

{{debate-philosophy}} 
There is no _objective_ truth; this is a _subjective_ truth I choose to believe. [[User:Lw2007|Luke]] 01:19, 17 December 2007

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think anyone really claims that there ''is'' no objective truth, just that there is no access to it; i.e., that there is no objective ''knowledge''. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 17 November 2007 (EST)

or it could be that "there is no objective truth" is a fact and not a truth. there is a difference between the two.

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::So is what you are saying true? Objectively speaking I mean. While I agree the debate is a waste of time it is made necessary by the legions of people who find it necessary to state as objective truth that there is no objective truth.

This has been considered already and often. Please see Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theory, or Alan Turing's Halting Problem. All formal axiomatic systems are incomplete, although each instance within the system may be provable.

For example ....

"For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

Perhaps an easier way to think about it ....

"Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, asserts: "G cannot be proven true". If G were able to be proven true under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicts itself, and thus the theory would be inconsistent. But if G were not provable, then it would be true (for G expresses this very fact) and thus the theory would be incomplete."

All of this, at least in my mind, is not necessarily a waste of time -- self reference brings these formal logical systems (unfortunately or not) to their knees. The consequences of the debated question is where I think that we can find a more sublime and perhaps telling Truth. Reason has it's limits although I offer no evidence or explanation for what it cannot explain or those things of which it cannot make "sense". I do however, have my own ideas :) bumble70

:This is an abuse of Godel's theorem, which certainly does not prove that ''all'' consistent formal axiomatic systems are incomplete. It proves that all consistent axiomatic systems of arithmetic that include the traditional operations of addition and multiplication are incomplete, but plenty of axiomatic systems ''are'' complete--for example, systems with only addition. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 17 November 2007 (EST)

While I believe in objective truth (I'm a social constructivist), the attack on post modernity/post-structuralism presented in the title is decidely weak. First, to claim that any descriptive statement (i.e. 'there is no objective truth') need be an objective truth to be meaningfull is to misunderstand what is ment by objectivity (in the context of post modern theory). The Post Modernist claim that there can be no objective truth is only referencing normative claims. (claims about how things should be.) They are not saying that there cannot be objectively true descriptive claims (i.e. claims that have no prescriptive content, i.e. 'you are 6 feet tall.') They would say that yes, you might be 6 feet tall, but whether that is good, bad, or otherwise is purely subjective.

therefore a postmodernist can coherently say "the statement there is no objective [normative] truth is objectively true," precisely because that statement is descriptive and not normative.

(It should be noted that post modernists might very well have an epistemological objection to knowing any descriptive truth- NOT because those truths don't exist, but because we are incapable of knowing them, for a variety of reasons. However this is an epistemological objection, and not relevant to the ontological question of whether or not objective [normative] truth exists as such.) ~Essariel 5-28-07

If objective truth did not exist than immediately following the most recent campus murdering spree in VA Tech, there would have been myriad pundits asking the question "Was this a bad thing to have occurred?" The fact that no one even considered that a question implicitly proves that there is in fact an objective truth and consequently an objective moral order. If you can't see that, you're really not trying to look.

Be careful with claims like that - I can think of at least one person who felt that massacre wasn't a bad thing, and although the vast majority of humanity may disagree with him, Cho clearly felt his actions were "good" enough under his own system of beliefs to carry them out. Objective truth is not a popularity contest.--[[User:Guybrush|Guybrush]] 1:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

"'We know that we know nothing,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- 'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- 'You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved."
:Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[[User:Cthx]]

:Rand is just mischaracterizing. She uses quote marks, but who is she quoting? A straw man... --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:55, 17 November 2007 (EST)

-Humans affect logic, so the struggle to attain a state of purer logic is as natural and as connected as the human reaction for recognizing ones own limitations. Namely that you wish to surpass them. Of course the claim is not an objective truth becuase everyone has different views, opinions, and beliefs. Although some scientific breakthroughs can be made at the same time and by different, unconnected people, the advancement can only point to a greater mystery to be solved. When a human makes a claim, it is never objective because the statements comes from a biased mind limited by perception and belief. There is no such thing as an un-biased mind. If there were, would it recognize itself as thus?- Christos

:The question is asked; Is the phrase, "there is no objective truth", an objective truth?
* No because understanding is subjective. You understand or I understand or Joe Smith understands and that is called "subjective". When we read, we understand. "Objective" means something exists above and beyond individual understanding. Indeed, "Objective" means something exists even if no one at all, ever, understands at all. Since it is a written statement, when it is read, it is read by an individual who (probably) understands it. Therefore the statement is not an objective truth because it requires the statement be subjectively understood before it can be answered. [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 01:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think this is a stupid debate topic! -Racecarlock

If I think I exist would'nt I have to in fact exist because to think must imply existance. How can you think if you dont exist? So the fact that I think I exist leads to actual existance means that my existance is an objective truth. I in fact do exist. Not to infer that you must think to exist, but thinking must imply existance. So existance is an objective truth. So the statment is inherently wrong. There are objective truths. The problem is that humans are 100% objective. The thought of existing is an subjective truth in itself but has to lead to the objective truth that existance exists. -Lurkspotter

------------ On Absolutes
This is the same thing as stating - "There is NO such thing as absolutism." Which is an absolute statement. This is called a self-refuting argument. You can say it but it is irrational, illogical, and childish. Then the only statement that holds up is to say that "There are absolutes." -- Because that is an absolute statement and it is in agreement with itself. Then the argument become where are they? Who writes them? This leads to the fact there must be universal absolutes because without them nothing can be viewed as right and nothing can be viewed as wrong. We all have inscribed into us an absolute law, so when we break it, we know. We hid the fact we broke this absolute and flee when none pursue. When others break it we get angry for them having done so, because we know - that THEY KNEW, they were breaking it when they harmed us or our property.

You see when others harm us we are angry because we know there is an absolute univeral code - that states they should not. If you do not believe in that code - then I would call you a liar - because if I stole all your stuff and cut off your arms and you were upset at all about it - you do believe that I should not have done it. Atheists especially have a hard time with this behavioral inconsistency. They CLAIM that there is no universal code - but are wounded when someone breaks that non-existent code of universal ethics. Therefore they should not be wounded or hurt when a fellow primate takes their stuff or their mate or BOTH. They ARE upset - that is the behavioral inconsistency. They do not believe as they profess. They are a contradiction.

To answer the initial debate question. You cannot state (without being an illogical person) there is NO objective truth. If you TRIED to do it you would be entering into a contradictory position that would be illogical. Therefore there IS objective truth. Game-set-match. -- Ted Griffith

Talk:Continental drift

2011-03-24T17:19:09Z

Tedrick79: /* Creationist? */

I think it makes sense to move this information to [[plate tectonics]]. I just wrote a small introduction to that article, and most of this would fit nicely into it. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 00:19, 6 March 2009 (EST)

== Creationist? ==

Wasn't everybody a creationist in 1859? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:22, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:There were more atheists (or [[Bible deniers]]) in 1859 than there are today. [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:37, 5 February 2011 (EST)

I would think that biblical denial got more more popular when they had something that seemed solid to stand on. [[Evolution]] is a fully fledged replacement worldview as much as Christianity is. Plate tectonics and the millions of years it says to work takes flies in the face of all we know about coastal erosion and it makes Genesis 1:1-11 out to be a lies and [[Jesus Christ]] references this later in Mark - making him out to be a liar as well. I do think the continents drifted to where they are now during The [[Great Flood]]. The [[Hydroplate Theory]] answers the problems of tectonics and sticks with the Bible. Allowing both the continents to arrive where they are today quickly, before they are eroded to dust, and synching up with what know about the way plates grind, more than drift, now.
Most plates are headed for the Pacific (trenches) and are coming from the Mid-Atlantic. Also the Atlantic is more shallow than the Pacific due to this. The main empirical problem I have with tectonic theory or continental drift is erosion both on the coast and to the continental surfaces. None of them bear millions of years type of erosion. The river deltas have a meaurable rate of increase in size and they are not more than 20,000 years old. And draining from a flood being inserted they could be 4,000 years old. But they are not millions or billions and they should be if they had been drifting for that period of time.

==Other proponents==

*1587- From looking at the shape of the continents, Abraham Ortelius, a respected Flemish cartographer, suggests that America may have once been part of Europe and Africa and had been torn apart by earthquakes and floods. [http://www.scientus.org/timeline/Galileo-Contemporaries-Timeline.html]

I found the above quote on a website that exalts the early scientific work of Catholic priests, and denies the modern notion that religion and science are (necessarily) at odds. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:30, 5 February 2011 (EST)