TenQ:


It seems you do not understand the subject of objective molarity. Objective morality is ABSOLUTE as it is not debatable. Objective morality can be set both by God or a governing authority. Subjective morality can vary from one person to another as it is NOT absolute.
Objective morality does not stem from the fact that it can be logically justified. No! It simply means that it is a take it or leave it kind of law: absolute in nature.

Actually it is you who doesn't understand. There is no such thing as absolute morality nor is there objective morality after fashion you are talking about. If there was such a thing all governments would have the same basis for for their laws and all laws would be uniform but that is not what we see at all. There are different basis for different national laws for the same crimes. This is because morality is derivative and has no singular source.

When God says fornication is wrong, to those who believe in God's law, it is objective and there is no argument of justification.

This is called divine command which of course has no effect on how I view morality. You are welcome to follow your "divine" command but it is not the basis for all morality.

Same as per when the government sets a legal age for sex, alcohol or even speed limit.

The problem atheists have is when Christians for instance speak about the source of an objective law of morality as God but take for granted that objective law of morality can also be set by Governments.

Like is it moral for me as a store owner to sell cigarettes and alcohol to a primary school pupil?

Humans have Otions that survives their death while fauna and flora only have otions that can’t survive death.

Human Otions survive death because they have Raka booties that are perpetually connected to the Otions.

That’s how Mercurians relate to the concept of Booty, Otion,and Raka. It’s similar to a Toyota and its engine.

TenQ:

A computer program is first a series of Instructions acting on data:
This program can be put on different media in forms suitable for the target recipient: thus
1. A program can be written in Human understandable form as TEXTS but it is still the program
The texts can be an Algorithm, Or High level Language Dialect Specific Form (C++, Pascal, BASIC, FORTRAN etc)
2. The same program can be written in a human understandable form but closer to the Machine form in terms of Assembly Language.
This is still a program but hardware ready
3. The same program can be Compiled or Interpreted into Machine Actionable Forms. At this point it is just simply sequences of ZEROs and ONEs.
4. The machine Actionable form (zeros and ones) are now stored in form of electric potentials, magnetic poles, charge differences etc

The question is can a program exist OUTSIDE the computer?
Of course!
Until the program becomes compiled into Zeros and Ones it isn't machine readable.

In a simple term:
A computer program can be translated into ANY suitable Language Dialect e.g. TEXTs, ALGORITHMs, High level language Specific Dialect, Assembly Language, Low Level Language Specific Form depending on the receptor of such sequence of instructions.

Can a computer program exist outside the Computer?
The answer is YES: but it must be written somewhere else.
This is the reason why we can clone a computer by MOVING ALL the DATA and PROGRAM into an external Storage device such that when the main computer crashes, it can be fully restored

With respect to the Soul existing without the body I said

Now provide evidence that this is the case for humans, that their minds are transferred somewhere else.

LordReed:


Now provide evidence that this is the case for humans, that their minds are transferred somewhere else.

Back to square one!?

TenQ:

......

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

TenQ:

Back to square one!?

Lmao. You never got to square one talkless of back to square one.

Lordreed will put it in a respectable manner but you are a jackass.

Not only is the soul unexplained, you then introduce another thing called spirit-body.
I feel you though. It reminds me of when I tell people about Otions and Raka booties only for them to call me crazy.

LordReed:


Actually it is you who doesn't understand. There is no such thing as absolute morality nor is there objective morality after fashion you are talking about. If there was such a thing all governments would have the same basis for for their laws and all laws would be uniform but that is not what we see at all. There are different basis for different national laws for the same crimes. This is because morality is derivative and has no singular source.



This is called divine command which of course has no effect on how I view morality. You are welcome to follow your "divine" command but it is not the basis for all morality.

I said:
It seems you do not understand the subject of objective molarity. Objective morality is ABSOLUTE as it is not debatable.

You can find a suitable alternative to "absolute" as I have defined it both here and with several other examples such as legal age and speed limit.

Why do most government choose 18 years as the legal age and not 21 years? We only can guess!
However the law has been set (for many countries) 18 years as the legal adult age.

If a child is 17 years 11 months old, he/she is still treated as a minor. If you are not comfortable with the term absolute, kindly help me with a more suitable word!

I have not even argued once for "God as the source of all morality"! I wonder where you got that from in our discussions

budaatum:


Soul doesn't appear in science at all, as far as I know, so it was rather odd that TenQ wants to discuss it scientifically.

But I guess that's what those who generalise on insufficient information would do, thinking others might not know any better.

But the studies involving the Soul exist in Philosophy!
Not everything logical or Scientific is physical or biological sciences!

TenQ:

Back to square one!?

You should have just said you believe by faith instead of the rigmarole and waste of time.

TenQ:

I said:
It seems you do not understand the subject of objective molarity. Objective morality is ABSOLUTE as it is not debatable.

You can find a suitable alternative to "absolute" as I have defined it both here and with several other examples such as legal age and speed limit.

Why do most government choose 18 years as the legal age and not 21 years? We only can guess!
However the law has been set (for many countries) 18 years as the legal adult age.

If a child is 17 years 11 months old, he/she is still treated as a minor. If you are not comfortable with the term absolute, kindly help me with a more suitable word!

I have not even argued once for "God as the source of all morality"! I wonder where you got that from in our discussions

If god is not the source of all morality then there is no such thing as the objective morality you are going on about. You just checkmated yourself.

LordReed:


If god is not the source of all morality then there is no such thing as the objective morality you are going on about. You just checkmated yourself.

I said: that wasn't my point of argument. I did not even raise the issue of God being the source of ALL objective morality.

I have defined objective morality as having sources from a constituted authority.

TenQ:

I hope you know that when the government says that the speed limit in a particular road is 30km/h, it is a form of objective moral source. Objective source of morality is NOT exclusive to God.

TenQ:


It seems you do not understand the subject of objective molarity. Objective morality is ABSOLUTE as it is not debatable. Objective morality can be set both by God or a governing authority. Subjective morality can vary from one person to another as it is NOT absolute.
Objective morality does not stem from the fact that it can be logically justified. No! It simply means that it is a take it or leave it kind of law: absolute in nature.

You can find a closer synonym to the word OBJECTIVE.

It just simply means ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong as used in the examples of 18years adult age and speed limit on a road.

LordReed:


You should have just said you believe by faith instead of the rigmarole and waste of time.

My objective is not to debate that right from the onset and I told you very clearly.

TenQ:

My objective is not to debate that right from the onset and I told you very clearly.

That was about your fifth response. You should have made it the first and saved me the trouble.

TenQ:

I said: that wasn't my point of argument. I did not even raise the issue of God being the source of ALL objective morality.

I have defined objective morality as having sources from a constituted authority.




You can find a closer synonym to the word OBJECTIVE.

It just simply means ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong as used in the examples of 18years adult age and speed limit on a road.

And again there is nothing like that as long as there isn't a singular source for morality. What part of that don't you understand?

Also the fact that any of those laws can be revised and changed means they are not absolute.

TenQ:

But the studies involving the Soul exist in Philosophy!
Not everything logical or Scientific is physical or biological sciences!

I do not think philosophers call themselves scientists, but correct me if I am wrong.

budaatum:


I do not think philosophers call themselves scientists, but correct me if I am wrong.

Might wanna read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

LordReed:


Might wanna read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

It's belief that's the problem.

One can't be a use the senses to ask and knock and seek, and at the same time hold on to beliefs. Because, once one believes, one stops asking and knocking and seeking, and after so long even the abilities to ask and knock and seek are lost.

budaatum:


It's belief that's the problem.

One can't be a use the senses to ask and knock and seek, and at the same time hold on to beliefs. Because, once one believes, one stops asking and knocking and seeking, and after so long even the abilities to ask and knock and seek are lost.

The problem of Africa (and the African diaspora) in a nutshell.

TenQ:

Can you look at it this way:
If we agree that the person you call "I", "ME", "MYSELF" is truly you howbeit not the physical you.

Is this "You" you call (I, ME, MYSELF)
A. Your Brain?
B. Your Mind?
C. Your Soul?
D. Your Body?

Who experiences an emotion out of these four options?
If you are completely dismembered and surgically replaced, would you still remain you?

Just as any one bit of an elephant is not the elephant so is buda the totality of a physical being and my entire time accumulating knowledge and experiences etc, and it is that totality that feels, as opposed to any one aspect feeling for me.

Deepsight. You might note why my "love for" might differ to that of someone else.

DeepsightX:


Maybe "soul" is another word for "you."
Or "I" . . . or "me."

As TenQ has been suggesting.

Like a proxy?

Imagine I could possibly be looking at the soul of DeepSight when I am obviously completely blind to seeing the physical DeepSight that you present before me.

Now imagine me telling you to believe what I saw about the soul of the deepsight that is the proxy I see instead of you.

TenQ:

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

Are you stating what you have chosen to believe is the truth, TenQ?

budaatum:


Like a proxy?

Imagine I could possibly be looking at the soul of DeepSight when I am obviously completely blind to seeing the physical DeepSight that you present before me.

Now imagine me telling you to believe what I saw about the soul of the deepsight that is the proxy I see instead of you.

By the prophet's beard!

budaatum:


Are you stating what you have chosen to believe is the truth, TenQ?

It makes perfect sense to me

budaatum:


Just as any one bit of an elephant is not the elephant so is buda the totality of a physical being and my entire time accumulating knowledge and experiences etc, and it is that totality that feels, as opposed to any one aspect feeling for me.

Deepsight. You might note why my "love for" might differ to that of someone else.

You did not answer any of the questions.

I repeat:
Is this "You" you call (I, ME, MYSELF)
A. Your Brain?
B. Your Mind?
C. Your Soul?
D. Your Body?

Who experiences an emotion out of these four options?
If you are completely dismembered and surgically replaced, would you still remain you?

budaatum:


I do not think philosophers call themselves scientists, but correct me if I am wrong.

I didn't say philosophers are scientists.

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. ... Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

LordReed:


And again there is nothing like that as long as there isn't a singular source for morality. What part of that don't you understand?

Also the fact that any of those laws can be revised and changed means they are not absolute.

And such laws can only be changed by the constituted authority that made the Original law!

TenQ:

And such laws can only be changed by the constituted authority that made the Original law!

The constituted authority also changes so no sir, there is nothing like absolute morality.

BTW glad you agree the law can and does change so again you've checkmated yourself.

TenQ:

It makes perfect sense to me

Like beauty, right? In the eyes of you the beholder?

Those seeking knowledge don't normally work that way, and are more willing to consider what makes perfect sense to others, and why.

LordReed:


That was about your fifth response. You should have made it the first and saved me the trouble.

And there had been several more discussions between us before you conveniently forgot my stance.

TenQ:

And there had been several more discussions between us before you conveniently forgot my stance.

Then you should have reiterated your stance. Meanwhile here you are debating about morality so how am supposed to have taken you seriously that you aren't here for a debate?

TenQ:

Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Note that nowhere does it say philosophers "generalise from insufficient information", but that they do the opposite and go questioning.

TenQ:

You did not answer any of the questions.

I repeat:
Is this "You" you call (I, ME, MYSELF)
A. Your Brain?
B. Your Mind?
C. Your Soul?
D. Your Body?

Who experiences an emotion out of these four options?
If you are completely dismembered and surgically replaced, would you still remain you?

I believe I did answer your question and you are refusing to accept it is what I think.

budaatum:

Just as any one bit of an elephant is not the elephant so is buda the totality of a physical being and my entire time accumulating knowledge and experiences etc, and it is that totality that feels, as opposed to any one aspect feeling for me.

That totality of buda is what is being presented to you while it seems you are trying to split buda into aspects of a Brain, Your Mind, Your Soul and Your Body.

budaatum:


Note that nowhere does it say philosophers "generalise from insufficient information", but that they do the opposite and go questioning.

1. Sufficient information is relative my dear Buda!
2. You were the one who brought up the issue of insufficient information not me.

I only moved from the known about softwares and computer hardware to describe the unknown (soul and spirit). This is how theories are postulated UNTIL such theories are disproved or a better theory is presented.