FunkyTown

No, no. I agree wholeheartedly that what he said had nothing to do with morality. So: He made a morally neutral choice - That is, neither good nor bad, but the consequences were bad. But those consequences have nothing to do with how good a person he was, morally, correct?

So... If a man scratched his nose casually. And this caused a ridiculously unlikely series of events, totally undriven by his will which caused a nuclear holocaust that destroyed all of mankind... Would that be a morally evil act?

I... Explained why I disputed the need for omniscience and omnibenevolence in the final bit of my post. You haven't proven either are necessary for making the 'maximally ethical choice'. Why do you need either of those to be maximally ethical? Being ethical is a choice. If I choose to scratch my nose, which sets off an unlikely series of events that results in the world being consumed by nuclear fire, would you claim that what I had done was unethical? Because if so, we are about to have an argument over whether utilitarianism is an appropriate measurement for ethics.

Couple of things: 1) This is a Non-sequitur, formal fallacy. Just because we haven't done what is maximally ethical doesn't mean we cannot. You have proven we haven't. Like someone saying 100 years ago that we would never go to the moon or run a mile in less than 3 minutes, you are assuming that just because we have historically failed means that we will fail or we are incapable. That is not true. 2) You are now saying that some people are more ethical and some are less. That is true. There even may be some genetic component to that. However, if some humans are further along the spectrum of 'goodness' than others, then that means there is a universal standard by which ethics may be known, since you(And not God) are making a value judgment on morality. If you(And not God, since I presume God did not personally tell you this) are saying some people are better and some are worse, that suggests that you are capable of applying a universal standard of ethics. If no human is capable of objective morality, then all attempts at measuring human morality are subjective. If morality is purely subjective, then you have no cause to say something is 'better' or 'worse' since you have no way of knowing if you are 'better' or 'worse' than those individuals. All you have stated here is that humanity is not yet ethically perfect - That we are weak. To speak it in other terms: We are like an 8 stone weakling looking at a 25 stone set of barbells and assuming because we are weak and because nobody we know is strong enough, that nobody else is. You have also made an error in assuming that doing what is ethical is an infinitely difficult thing that can only be attempted by infinite beings. Ethics doesn't work like that. You aren't seeking to apply all infinite potential choices as an measuring stick. That is not how we live nor how we should live. Doing what is ethical is a series of finite choices made in the moment - A very measurable and much more bearable burden. With a place to stand and a teaspon and the time to do it in, you could move the earth - Just one teaspoon at a time. All you have proven thus far is that we sometimes choose badly, sometimes choose well. You leaped from that to 'We cannot know what is truly moral'. Your counter-argument may be, "But you do not have infinite knowledge. You cannot know what is infinitely good. Maybe turning to the left or right will cause a car accident that murders thousands, causing the death of someone who would have gone on to cure cancer and save fifty million sad one-legged puppies". That is true. But morality doesn't work like that - Turning to the left and right in a case like that is a morally neutral choice, regardless of consequences. Bad luck does not equate to being a bad person.

I get it. Those can be painful memories. But... If you were my sister-in-law and my brother had passed away, you would still be family. If you distanced yourself, they probably think you don't want to see them due to the pain it causes. I get it - We all process grief in different ways. Just know that you don't need to be alone. You're loved. We want you there and you don't need to do it alone.

Definitely read it. It's great. And seriously - Take a moment. I know I'm asking a lot and I know that abandoning all the defense mechanisms you've built up for yourself is a big ask. There are going to be a million reasons to not do it. You will feel exhausted thinking about it and you will feel like you can't. But that isn't true and it certainly isn't God speaking when you feel like that. Just... Take a moment for yourself. Grab a drink. I get it. I'm asking you to do something scary, which every instinct is screaming out for you not to do. Don't let that instinct beat you. Five years from now, you will laugh that it held you captive for so long.

There is a scene in a book I love, by C.S. Lewis. It's called the Great Divorce. It's about how the denizens of Hell can vacation in Heaven and why they might not want to stay. . The scene involves a Dwarf, leading a gigantic marionette doll called The Tragedian. This Dwarf was so obsessed with the projection of an image, that he met the woman he loved more than anything. The love of his life wanted to welcome him to heaven, and he wanted that, too - But he was more obsessed with an image he was portraying and he gave up everything to simply become that marionette Tragedian. And he did it because he would rather keep the miserable persona he created than abandon it for something better. It's okay to be the Dwarf. We've all been there and if you decide to let go of the string, five years from now you will laugh at it. Just... Don't become the Tragedian. There are wonders and majesties and great things in this world - Things you know and sense and feel - But you are so obsessed with giving away no weakness that you're losing the chance for something better. Abandon this character you're portraying and people will cheer. You will be welcomed with open arms and without judgment. Or keep it. We can't stop you and we won't be held captive to emotional blackmail where you want something better, but will only accept it on your terms. (PS: God? If I'm ever in this situation, I would totally love to get the same offer. ;))

Relax. I know it feels like we're ganging up on you, and we are - And for that I am profoundly sorry(Though if it awoke something in you, maybe it was worth it). You have heard - From nearly everyone in this thread, from Mordorbund to Zil to MormonGator to me - That you are not engaging, that you seem to be avoiding direct questions. Surely... SURELY you can see that if everyone is saying it, that there might be a grain of truth to it? If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to stop trying to control the conversation and let us ask what we need to of you? And to answer those as best you can? Maybe... Just maybe... Doing something different to what you've been doing all the way through this thread might get you different results than what you expect.

Yeah! If you show up, I'll start a chant saying "We love KScience! We love KScience!" - We want you there.

I have genuinely never seen anyone so unable to answer straightforward questions. Ever. The thing is - Even he knows it. He knows he's been found out and he's trying to plow forward like nothing is happening. A part of me is concerned he's spiralling because he's been found out. Honestly: @2ndRateMind - Dude. Take a moment, step back. You've been found out. That's all right. We still love you, man, and it's not that big a deal. We get it. Just stop trying to play games. It's hard. We know. It's who you've been for a long time. It isn't easy, but it -can be-.

Wow. This is spectacularly terrible.

There is a part of me that secretly thinks the whole Isaiah '7 women will cling to one man' verse references how few men stay faithful compared to women. It's a disturbing thought, and I certainly don't think it's a guarantee, but I had it when someone read off the stats to me and I saw that there were 7 times as many active single women as men beyond 30.

That is so sad! Why wouldn't you be able to go to church?

@2ndRateMind - I am genuinely impressed by this. I have never seen anyone so committed to evading any possibility of ever giving a straight answer. You are, literally and without any hyperbole, the most evasive human being(I assume. You could be a very well programmed AI for all I know) I have ever met. You aren't even willing to say you don't enjoy this back and forth we're doing, despite hinting strongly at it in the past. I am impressed. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Everyone can see what you're doing. And yet... And yet... Despite all of that, you cannot even say "I do not enjoy this, FunkyTown. I think it's vaguely insulting. I do not enjoy being vaguely insulted. The answer to your question is 'no'." I wasn't insulting you, by the way. I just assumed you are a person so filled with vulnerability that you cannot countenance the idea that you might 'lose' an online discussion, so to protect yourself you refuse to provide any real basis for your beliefs or any real foundation. I think, once, you probably did search for truth. Then, truth became harder to come by as you learned more and more. The first few books of philosophy you read gave you a heady sense of excitement and power as you realized how the world worked. You resolved to learn more and you devoured books on learning and epistemology. But that heady rush became fewer and further between, so you turned online. Suddenly, the rush was back. You were debating people, and -winning-. And you conflated winning a debate with the pure, heady rush of actually learning something. You became confused, so you decided to stay online. This is your outlet - The place and way you feel powerful. But don't you see how that's just a shadow of what you -could- be? That you could genuinely become better? That the world could be a better place because you could help make it that way. This thing you're doing now... All it's doing is holding you back. You are becoming more and more a shadow of the man who once sought truth and now seeks only to use what he once learned as a club, while simultaneously allowing no vulnerability to be shown. We want to help. We would love to get your input to help grow, but you need to make a conscious decision. Or make a conscious decision that you hate truth and do want to just argue online. Either one is fine, but you have to pick a side, man.

And yet... You STILL couldn't answer yes or no as to whether you enjoy this little back and forth we have. Even now, even despite the fact that we both know the answer to this. Even now, when the answer is -painfully clear-, you cannot answer a question plainly even though the stakes are incredibly low. It's almost beautiful how committed you are to avoiding being pinned down on literally anything.

My family was killed by a living fountain pen! His eyes drip venomous hate and he stands, hipshot, with hand placed arrogantly on his hip. You can see the evil oozing from his black heart, dripping contemptuously from his tip as he plots your doom. MIRK WAS RIGHT!

Hi Georgia! It was great to hear this and I love understanding your journey. You should be proud you think about these things ,rather than worry you're offending someone by asking. You are wonderful and brilliant. Couple of points: 1) The bible is a collection of various books. Luke was a Doctor who gave historical fact - John was more poet who argued for the Greeks. Different people wrote different parts, just like different people wrote the Book of Mormon. Luke wrote to convince the Jews(Who cared more about Jewish history) And John wrote to convince the Greeks(Who were obsessed with art, culture and philosophy) . The Book of Mormon speaks more to you. No shame in that. That's why more than one Gospel is included - So different people with different needs are catered to. 2) The bible is complicated, with an ocean of time's worth of ideas and events separating the first word from the last. It's hard - The Old Testament is beautiful and wonderful, but it takes a good teacher to really understand it. Don't worry if it's hard. You'll get there. Thanks for the comments. You can see a really strong spirit in how you write.

Of course your kids loved the stories. They heard something that let them connect to their dad. It was, for a moment, to feel closer to someone they've lost. Have you considered taking them to church a couple of times to see if they like it? Maybe they learn something amazing and new and wonderful, or maybe they're bored out of their skulls and don't want to come back. You can still take them to see your family in the afternoon, stay for a few hours. Or take them on Saturday - Maybe this will just help them connect to who their father was.

I actually can answer this, and have in the past, so I won't belabour that, but... Are you enjoying this back and forth we're having? Do you find it fun, or intellectually stimulating? I know there's a part of you that looks at that yes/no question and is feeling a bit of dread at answering it definitively. "Should I answer that? Where is he going with this? If I say yes, will that lead to something that leaves me vulnerable?(Answer: Yes, a little bit). If I say 'No', will that lead to something that leaves me vulnerable?(Answer: Yes, a little bit, but in a different way). So I urge you to fight down that feeling and honestly answer: Do you enjoy this back and forth? Do you find it fun, or intellectually stimulating?

I do have an agenda. I'm not particularly hiding it. My agenda is to find out whether or not you are genuinely engaging in bad faith arguments or accidentally. If you -are- deliberately doing it - Simply trolling(Believe it or not, that's something that happens on the internet. 🤓) - Then that's fine. I get it, but that needs to be exposed so people who aren't aware of what you're doing understand. And I am not the only one who suggested that you are refusing to clarify your positions and simply hiding them. There have been several others, I've noticed. I am not insulting you, by the way. You definitely are engaging in bad faith arguments, but I make no moral judgment about that. Unless it's deliberate, in which case I -do- make a moral judgment about it as being 'bad' and 'wrong'. Which brings me to the twenty-fourth time I've asked this question. And you can ignore it, but I won't stop asking it, because a lot of people on here are genuinely good people who genuinely want to help and genuinely love sharing ideas and growing spiritually. It's remarkable and beautiful, really, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for it. Would you prefer to know the truth or to have an argument?

Well, I generally just post to things that interest me. At first, you proposed an interesting question. "How do we know what is objectively good?" That's a great question. Insightful, even, and very important to know. However, answering that required that I know what proofs you accept. Your responses were so vague as to be meaningless. Then, when I realized you were engaging in bad faith arguments, my interest was piqued. I have students that try to do that. Sometimes they rant. Sometimes they rage, or use personal attacks. It happens - I have broad shoulders. I don't particularly care about those one way or another. However, bad faith arguments generally only stem from one of two reasons for being done: 1) They are done knowingly - The person genuinely doesn't care about the truth and just wants to win an argument. In this case, the way to handle it is to reframe consistently. Do not let them avoid questions - Ask directly and honestly. People knowingly engaging in bad faith arguments hate that 100% of the time. 2) They are done unknowingly - This person might be having a bad day, or this might be such a vital part of their self-image that they cant come to terms with what you're asking. Cognitive dissonance takes over and they simply refuse to engage - They hate questions just as much, but for a very different reason. And so I'm participating right now in this thread because I haven't yet decided if you're deliberately engaging in bad faith arguments, or accidentally engaging in them and have no idea that you are. If it's the second, then there's still hope(And hope springs eternal). If it's the first, then it will take... Something. Something that shocks you out of complacency - Something I am not capable of providing myself. Which brings me to the twenty-third time I've asked this question: Would you rather know truth or have an argument?

I'm just messing with you. That first question was a trap question I knew you couldn't answer, but I know it probably wasn't your intent to lie.(Though, to be fair, due to your reticence in answering any questions about what you believe, I'm taking that more on faith;)). Ultimately, I have no idea what you're hoping to get out of this at all. Do you just want an argument? To come closer to the truth? To prove to the world how smart you are? If it's the last thing, congratulations! You're smart. I know it. You know it. MormonGator knows it. You don't need to have the thread at all. If it's either of the other two, though, that is going to inform how we should treat the thread very differently. So I ask for a twenty-second time: Would you prefer to know the truth or to have an argument?

And yet again, you slither and prevaricate and verbally avoid. Shocking. Except that in this case, you specifically said you would take questions. That brings me two questions: 1) Is lying considered ethical under your belief system, And: 2) Would you prefer to know the truth, or have an argument?

Well, then, I have a criticism it can't stand up to: You didn't answer how this would be different to previous discussions where you refused to answer. That was one question you refused to answer, despite saying you would take questions along the way. That makes your very first post in this fresh new thread a lie. The second question you refused to answer was whether you were more interested in having an argument or discovering truth. So evading both those questions, very plainly asked bodes poorly for this particular thread. That's why I would ask, for the twenty-first time: Are you more interested in discovering truth or having an argument?

All right, then a few more questions: Specifically on 2: How do you define what is best and worst in the current state of the ethical art? If there is no objective metric, how can you possibly decide that something is either 'worst' or 'best'? And finally, for the 20th time: Would you rather know truth or have an argument?