Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[TRANSPONDER]

I would agree. However, some theists will argue that we 'just know' that murder is 'wrong'.

I don't think they argue this beyond the scope of God.

Wouldn't this be an 'intuitive sense'?

Not without God providing the intuition, no.

So that looks to me like appealing to 'intuition'.

But for the theist that means what God has given us to decide.

For the secularist it is a human construct of rules (based on instincts - likes, dislikes, sympathy or disapproval) and there is no reason to propose a god doing it, never mind which one.

If so, I'd say the morality argument hasn't worked for theism, let alone a particular religion, for a long time.

[SiNcE_1985]

So that looks to me like appealing to 'intuition'.

But for the theist that means what God has given us to decide.

Pretty much, yeah.

That's what I got out of it.

Sure.

For the secularist it is a human construct of rules (based on instincts - likes, dislikes, sympathy or disapproval) and there is no reason to propose a god doing it, never mind which one.

Why should we trust our instincts as it relates to moral duties?

If so, I'd say the morality argument hasn't worked for theism, let alone a particular religion, for a long time.

In order for you to judge what is right or wrong, you enter this judgement with a presupposed standard of right/wrong.

Which is question begging and thus fallacious.

[POI]

I would agree. However, some theists will argue that we 'just know' that murder is 'wrong'.

I don't think they argue this beyond the scope of God.

Wouldn't this be an 'intuitive sense'?

Not without God providing the intuition, no.

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

[William]

I would agree. However, some theists will argue that we 'just know' that murder is 'wrong'.

I don't think they argue this beyond the scope of God.

Wouldn't this be an 'intuitive sense'?

Not without God providing the intuition, no.

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

It appears that with atheists the assertion is that they come from within.
With most forms of Christianity, the assertion is that they come from God along with the assertion that God is an external entity, therefore implying that intuition does not come from/is not sourced within.

[POI]

I would agree. However, some theists will argue that we 'just know' that murder is 'wrong'.

I don't think they argue this beyond the scope of God.

Wouldn't this be an 'intuitive sense'?

Not without God providing the intuition, no.

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

It appears that with atheists the assertion is that they come from within.
With most forms of Christianity, the assertion is that they come from God along with the assertion that God is an external entity, therefore implying that intuition does not come from/is not sourced within.

I'm asking for clarification from the interlocutor. I want to know (his/her position) before I engage him/her.

[William]

I would agree. However, some theists will argue that we 'just know' that murder is 'wrong'.

I don't think they argue this beyond the scope of God.

Wouldn't this be an 'intuitive sense'?

Not without God providing the intuition, no.

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

It appears that with atheists the assertion is that they come from within.
With most forms of Christianity, the assertion is that they come from God along with the assertion that God is an external entity, therefore implying that intuition does not come from/is not sourced within.

I'm asking for clarification from the interlocutor. I want to know (his/her position) before I engage him/her.

Meantime, you could engage with what I wrote. Do you agree with my evaluation?

[SiNcE_1985]

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

Generally speaking, intuition comes from God.

In fact, it can ONLY come from God.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #97]

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

Generally speaking, intuition comes from God.

In fact, it can ONLY come from God.

We are coming to something here! This means you would also make the point that the Impression of angel with Golden Plates, felt by David Whitmer, also came from mormon god?

In another Thread I wanted to debate possible mechanics and details of The Resurrection and everyine avoids that like Plague.
My thread is good and long now, but no interest in the topic.
viewtopic.php?t=41349

Now I want to start another thread with a different approach.

I found out that the angel with Golden Plates, showed to the Three Witnesses according to Mormon Mythology has the same handycap.

Not even the Three Witnesses bothered to tell details about the angel.

Of them three, David Whitmer was the one who got the most thuroughly interviewed guy.
https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/ ... tatements/

One day a man named John Murphy asked him about details.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... _June_1880

[Murphy]: "First of all, I heard you saw an angel. I never saw one. I want your description of [the] shape, voice, brogue and the construction of his language. I mean as to his style of speaking. You know that we can often determine the class a man belongs to by his language."

[Whitmer]: "It had no appearance or shape."

[Murphy]: "Then you saw nothing nor heard nothing?"

[Whitmer]: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

[Murphy]: "How, then, could you have borne testimony that you saw and heard an angel?"

[Whitmer]: "Have you never had impressions?"

[Murphy]: "Then you had impressions as the quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?"

[Whitmer]: "Just so."

When David Whitmer read the Murphy interview, he published a rebuttal to John Murphy's portrayal of his witness experience.
But it was a rebuttal in name only. For since it hold no substance and didnt even try to finally give out details about the angel with the Golden Plates Haircut, Clothing, Eyecolor et cetera, the pseudo-rebuttal in fact reassured that Whitmer really saw nothing. Empty Phrases;

Unto all Nations, Kindreds, tongues and people unto whom this present Shall come.

It having been represented by one John Murphy of Polo Mo. that I in a conversation with him last Summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

To the end therefore, that he may understand me now if he did not then, and that the world may know the truth, I wish now standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public Statement;

That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.

He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.

Either David never saw the angel with the Golden Plates or for some strange reason did not want to talk details.

Resembling the strange reason for no one in this forum wanting to talk details about The Resurrection.

I give another chance. Lets talk about possible details of the angel with Golden Plates in relation to research mechanics of the resurrection.

Why seems everyone so rejecting to talk about details of miraculous things like Gold-Plate-Angels and Risings from the death of Godlings

Why were neither the Three Witnesses, nor the Apostles of Christ interested to talk details about their founding Wonder

Is anyone on this forum who, while avoiding to debate The Resurrections mechanics like plague, will still debate here the details of the angel with the Golden Plates

[POI]

Meantime, you could engage with what I wrote. Do you agree with my evaluation?

In the meantime, I was hoping you could pick up where you dropped out much prior, in explaining why a 'god-mind' necessarily exists, simply because human minds exist? Ala -post 3809 of (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=3800)

[POI]

Are you asserting that 'intuitions' come from God?

Generally speaking, intuition comes from God.

In fact, it can ONLY come from God.

Why?