<tpstar: Then all feckless liberals have unlimited rights to freedom of speech, while opposing viewpoints are consistently shut down as hate speech.>

We discussed this in the Elite Posters Cafe, <tp>. This is all about who gets to dictate the narrative, and that is how political correctness gets its insidious grip on culture. This is why I love Trump, because above all, he is smashing political correctness, and this is why I LOVE the tweets! More tweeting please!

What has to happen is that we all must smash political correctness by not accepting the new words that they come up with. We must smash PC by not accepting the new phrases they come up with like "shaming" and "phobe" and "hate speech". Yes, "hate speech" is a fake term, like "racism" and it does not exist. It has no meaning and it's just a deadly label that can be applied to opposing speech.

We must smash political correctness by not only rejecting the words they invent and the phrases they try to make trendy, but by shooting back deadly missiles of political incorrectness! If the left applies a label to something to protect it, that means that we need to talk about that, put our fingers in the wound, rub salt in it, and say whatever needs to be said in a non-sugarcoated, truthful way - and say it again and again.

This is what the president (#MyPresident) is doing but the untermensch can't see that. They think he's being rude! They think he's acting in a way that is beneath the office of the presidency!

I believe Donald Trump figured out long ago that social media is a giant waste of time. He doesn't care how much shade gets thrown at him, or on him, and he has tremendous courage acting as a lightning rod for the haters out there. Remember how happy feckless liberals were when he suffered through "the worst ten days in history" or whatever. Exactly - whatever.

Going next to media blackouts over items which make The Agenda look bad, compare the orgasmic frenzy over one June 2016 meeting versus the near silence over Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Justine Ruszczyk Damond, and James Comey. Even my Blue Dog Democrat patients agree that their Congressional representatives have spent too much time on the Russian Nothingburger instead of building a positive alternative platform, and the media is actively helping them in this regard by ignoring bad news. We didn't see CNN descending on Minneapolis to cover the looting and rioting, while the DOJ didn't send 40 agents to find or create civil rights violations.

<we all must smash political correctness> Except we have to carry this out very delicately. We don't want gun nut liberals shooting Republicans on the baseball field again.

<They still think that those old phonies are "fighting" in congress against Obamacare and against all the liberal stuff. They really think that. They think that Trump is distracting from the real fight by creating chaos. If they could only get rid of Trump, then they could get back to drinking coffee and listening to Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain talk "sensibly" about what needs to be one.>

Lindsey Graham was the one candidate from either side that I did not want anywhere near the Presidency. He wants to go to war right now.

See, the thing is <big pawn> knows that moral values exist objectively and he knows it through direct experience.

Whereas he does not have direct experience of uncaused cause which caused universe into existence as well as everything that exists in universe including objective moral values before humans were even created.

As he does not have this direct experience , he uses mind and intellect to draw some inferences about uncaused cause.

Now , anyone who knows teachings of Jesus at the level of direct experience knows how ridiculous that is.

Can you know grace through mind/intellect without having direct experience of it ?

Can you know uncaused cause through mind/intellect without having direct experience of it?

Incredible!

Unbelievable!

when you get some time, <cormier> , you should help <big pawn> have direct experience of uncaused cause through teachings of Jesus.

.

After all , it is not that Jesus did not know moral values existed objectively.

He knew that.

Then why did not Jesus teach objective moral values argument ?

Was he stupid ?

No. Jesus was very wise.

He knew how ridiculous this argument is.

He taught how to have direct experience of uncaused cause , instead.

<Cormier> , you should help <big pawn> , when you get time.

He says just because we believe that some cause created universe along with everything in it including objective moral values before even humans were created , we are not allowed to consider it possible that universe may not need supervision.

Perhaps, <big pawn> is very weak in logical thinking.>

This does not address the first premise and that is all we are supposed to be debating at this point. Therefore, I will delete your post but leave it copied in this message.

You need to give an argument, an alternate explanation of how moral values could be grounded in a transcendental foundation that is *not* God, and you haven't attempted this yet.

On the other hand I explained why God is the best explanation for the ontology of moral values. I explained that God is a necessary being, the first uncaused cause that caused all else, and that the concept of God is that of a maximally great being, and as such he has all great-making properties and attributes, such as goodness, and that the nature of God is goodness itself.

You need a competing explanation for the ontology of moral values, how they can be *grounded* in a transcendental foundation apart from humanity, but far from even offering a bad alternative, you've offered no alternative at all!

Also, apart from offering an alternative, you've given no reasons to think that the first premise is false by itself.

Instead, you're here floundering around about other things, and not making any points about those things either, but, instead you are just sort of asking yourself questions out loud.

This is not an argument.

Now he is saying that God caused moral values, thus validating and confirming the first premise!

I guess we're done here now.

Just clarifying: your argument remains ontological in nature, yes?

My thoughts on his popularity? I think as the pendulum swings right, people are going to discover the Jordan Petersons of the world. I discovered him on Facebook.

<argument remains ontological in nature>

Well, the moral argument is about the ontology of moral values and this must be stressed, because people forget this point or they never really properly realize it, and they begin to mix arguments regarding the semantics of moral values (what does it mean to be good?) as well as moral epistemology (how do we come to know moral values) and they get off topic. Most people don't realize it when they do this, but some do it on purpose.

The moral argument asks, basically, where to moral values come from? Or, to put it another way, what is the foundation of moral values?

The first premise states that if God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. Most people agree with this, theists and atheists alike. For example, most atheists say that since God does not exist, there is no absolute truth, no objective right or wrong and, if you go all the way to nihilism (Nietzsche) then no values at all exist whatsoever.

Like Nietzsche argued, and I think he's right, if God does not exist then man must create his own value system of rights, wrongs, good and evil, better and worse. In this world, Nietzsche argued that the Ubermensch should be the one who defines morality. Most people would just say, as Sam Harris argues in The Moral Landscape (or like Michael Ruse argues) that morality is not some thing emanating from God's nature, but is actually the product of humanity, societal pressure and social conditioning, and our ability to think morally due to evolution and natural selection over millions of years.

So if moral values exist objectively, that means that *exist* (there's the ontology part) apart from human kind, out there, somewhere. If they do not exist objectively then they are subjective, the product of human thought and so on.

Peterson is an interesting thinker. He is very much into both Nietzsche and Jung, and uses their thoughts as touchstones to understanding historical and modern culture. At least that's my take.

He is very big on Truth (capital T) and the Good (capital G). Not sure what his stance is on God's existence however, you may find his disagreement with Sam Harris regarding Truth itself to be pertinent to your way of thinking. Personally, I really enjoy his way of thinking, and tend to agree with much of his material. Jung, in particular, has always been a favorite of mine, someone who I think really figured some Truths out.

Not true.

There are more than one alternative ontological explanation - given by both scientists as well as people following the teachings of Jesus at the level of experience.

Alternative ontological explanation given by scientists is what <johnlspouge> talked about :

1) some cause created universe and everything in it including objective moral values. Once created , universe does not need any supervision as explained in this article whose link was provided by <johnlspouge> :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo...

2) hence it is established that no power (call it god or whatever ) is needed to run/supervise universe.

3)omv morality argument thoroughly refuted.

There is another alternate ontological explanation given by the people who know teachings of Jesus at the level of experience.

Let me know if anyone wants that ontological explanation as well.

<Omv morality argument thoroughly refuted>

Not true. >

You have not said what transcendental foundation moral values are grounded in.

The Creator of the universe and locus of moral values is called God.

Using another word besides God does not change the *essence* of the Creator.

This is why in the <rogoff> forum, I declared that you agree now with premise one. God is where moral values come from.

<Once created , universe does not need any supervision as explained in this article whose link was provided by <johnlspouge> :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo...

Irrelevant since we are only talking about where moral values come from and not how they behave, their characteristics, how we know them or anything else. The fact that you and <spooge> go this direction shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Stick to the ontology - where moral values come from! (not how they are directed or not after).

<2) hence it is established that no power (call it god or whatever ) is needed to run/supervise universe.>

This point follows up on the irrelevant point above. You see how this is part of your thinking? That proves that you have not understood that the moral argument is about the ONTOLOGY; where moral values COME FROM - not who runs it, supervises it, interferes with it, defines it, follows it and so on.

<3)omv morality argument thoroughly refuted. >

You base this on your irrelevant (not about the ontology, not about where moral values come from, not about their ontological foundation) assertion above.

So your entire argument is besides the point, but you, YOU, being the fool that you are, are utterly convinced by your folly.

You need to come back and talk NOT about who "supervises" (what a stupid idea anyway!) morality.

You need to come back and talk NOT about how moral values work.

You need to come back and talk about WHERE THEY COME FROM.

You need to come back and explain that they exist, out there, somewhere (you did say they exist objectively) but they are NOT founded in God (transcendental foundation) because they are founded int THIS:

Where is your (not assertion) argument>

Argument is that some cause was needed to create universe and everything in it including objective moral values However after that no power is needed to maintain/sustain universe and objective moral values . They don't need to be grounded in anything other than laws/processes of universe which don't need any external power (call it god or whatever) as explained in the article whose link is posted in my previous post.

<Omv morality argument thoroughly refuted>

There is another ontological explanation give by people who know teachings of Jesus at the level of experience.

Let me know if anyone needs that alternative ontological explanation as well.

<Omv morality argument thoroughly refuted>

You just repeat the <irrelevant> part of the statement that I copied above - which is irrelevant.

Can you not read?

<rrelevant since we are only talking about where moral values come from and not how they behave, their characteristics, how we know them or anything else. The fact that you and <spooge> go this direction shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Stick to the ontology - where moral values come from! (not how they are directed or not after).

<2) hence it is established that no power (call it god or whatever ) is needed to run/supervise universe.>

This point follows up on the irrelevant point above. You see how this is part of your thinking? That proves that you have not understood that the moral argument is about the ONTOLOGY; where moral values COME FROM - not who runs it, supervises it, interferes with it, defines it, follows it and so on.

<3)omv morality argument thoroughly refuted. >

You base this on your irrelevant (not about the ontology, not about where moral values come from, not about their ontological foundation) assertion above.

So your entire argument is besides the point, but you, YOU, being the fool that you are, are utterly convinced by your folly. >

Now you are just repeating the <irrelevant> point that I recopied.

Read it, and then read it again.

Then come back and:

You need to come back and talk NOT about who "supervises" (what a stupid idea anyway!) morality.

You need to come back and talk NOT about how moral values work.

You need to come back and talk about WHERE THEY COME FROM.

You need to come back and explain that they exist, out there, somewhere (you did say they exist objectively) but they are NOT founded in God (transcendental foundation) because they are founded int THIS:

You just contradicted yourself. You said earlier that the Creator of the universe is where moral values come from.

Now you are saying that moral values don't need to come from the Creator of the universe.

So where is your argument?

You need to give and argument that shows that:

1. moral values do not need to be grounded in God to exist objectively.

2. You argument for where they are actually grounded instead of God

Let me understand very clearly what you are saying .

So you saying that if scientists say that god of omv morality argument does not run/supervise universe as universe does not need supervision , your answer is that omv morality argument neither agrees nor disagrees because it is beyond the scope of omv morality argument and those scientists could be right as far as omv morality argument is concerned.

That is what you saying , right ?

Not an assertion, <nizzle>, an argument.>

No, I did not contradictions myself.

I never said that objective moral values come from creator, I never said that locus of objective moral values is creator of universe.

I said that creator of universe created universe along with anything in it including objective moral values and after that creator is not needed to sustain/maintain anything in universe including objective moral values.

Objective moral values don't need to be grounded in anything other than laws/processes of universe just like gravity for example.

That is the alternative ontological explanation of scientists

There is another ontological explanation provided by the people who know the teachings of Jesus at the level of experience.

<I said that creator of universe created universe along with anything in it including objective moral values>

Oh my>

<Diceman> thinks the two are the same/equivalent apparently.

You see <cormier> there seems to be language barrier, between <diceman> and <big pawn> - <diceman> apparently does not understand what <big pawn> is trying to say. I understand.

<Diceman> apparently thinks that above two statements are equivalent whereas <big pawn> does not think so.

There is a language barrier between these two posters apparently.

When <big pawn> says "Objective moral values come from creator" , <big pawn> means that <objective moral values> can not exist to be unless they are grounded in creator of universe and therefore continuous presence of creator is needed , creator can not just be absent after creating <objective moral values>

Whereas when <diceman> hears <objective moral values come from creator> , he apparently thinks it means Objective moral values are created by creator of universe and after creating them presence of creator is not required for omv to be in existence.

<Diceman> thinks the two are the same/equivalent apparently.>

You sound very angry.

Now you've hung something else around your neck that you need to deal with. You need to give an argument that the Creator of the universe can be *absent*, whatever that means. You are unaware of your assertions and what they imply.

A value is an abstract object, like a number, an as such cannot exist in the universe.

Moral values are a part of God's own nature, that is, He is The Good. *THIS* is how they can exist.

It doesn't matter if you think God supervises or not, what matters is the ONTOLOGY of moral values.

They cannot exist objectively if we produce them as humans. They have to exist out there, somewhere, but where?

Values do not exist, just like numbers don't really exist, and it makes therefore no sense, is completely incoherent to assert that moral *values* JUST EXIST floating around in outerspace somewhere.

Yet, we agree they exist objectively.

The answer is that they come from God as a part of his very nature.

You need to (and no one has EVER done this in the 2000 year history of this argument) give an alternate explanation that explains how moral VALUES and *EXIST* objectively sans God, and you haven't done that.

<spooge> did not do that either.

You do realize that abstract objects like numbers and values do not stand in causal relations, right? That is, the number three (3) can't CAUSE anything to happen!

Values are abstract objects too, and as such they cannot CAUSE anything to happen! Just FYI. So moral values "existing" as abstract objects (they don't, they can't) would cause anything. It wouldn't cause one to "feel" morality. It wouldn't cause an inner moral experience. Just as the value of a number doesn't cause you any feeling or experience. Again, abstract objects are not in causal relations in any way.

There's no such thing as separation of church and state. That's an overly generalized statement that is made in regards to a very specific statement in the constitution.

One's worldview always informs every decision or thought that one holds. So if a person believes in God, then God is part of his worldview, and that worldview is the foundation of every decision that person makes. Therefore, there is no separation between "church" and "state", unless we mean that the state can't officially declare a national church. That is, the state can't say that only Catholic churches are allowed and the Catholic church is the official state church.

Liberals use separation of church and state and an accordian word that expands or contracts to mean whatever they want it to mean, and in the increasingly godless society that liberals are trying to promote, they expand that term to mean that no Christian idea can be at the heart of any decision by anyone in gov't and that we need to promote godlessness otherwise we are not separating church and state.