Value objectively exists and you cannot argue otherwise without employing value in your internal deliberation.
Exists where?
>I'll be vague
>>18552325>>18553079And what of logic? Is it not also circular?
>>18552089God exists, and good and bad are a measure of distance from his light, you mean?
>>18553550No. God isn't necessary. The conscience evolved with us and you would have me believe that it just so happened by coincidence, in most cases, align with what we call good. And like the eye, that did not evolve to allow us to see light, it did so by chance of survivals cold indifference, we may use the conscience as the instrument it is. The eye is admittedly imperfect and yet we do not discount it. Nobody would ever mount such an attack on empiricism, which we all know rests on the assumption that patterns of the past will continue into the future. No. It is a system of reasoning that we allow to exist without proof, it exists before the argument. Just as most of us know the torture of a child for sport is wrong. Nothing else has to be said. And this conviction is found with no preferred custom or culture, and the people that profess that nothing matters without god or otherwise are proven wrong, and have been wrong, and will continue to be wrong for centuries. Proven by their own actions despite whatever shit they have to say.
>>18553564>Nobody would ever mount such an attack on empiricismSome people have access to alternative facts.
>>18553603I was implying a multitude of reasons, not any particular one.
>>18552089> you cannot argue otherwise without employing value in your internal deliberation.What do my internal deliberations have to do with the existence of "values"? Are they supposed to be inside my head or something?
>>18553564God is absolutely necessary. The idea of the evolution of bacteria into men is pure fiction and falsehood, derived from the desire to suppress the truth of God. The alignment of the human conscience with goodness is not a coincidence at all, but its very design, as God reveals Himself through the light of nature which is imprinted upon his soul. If you think the eye is not designed for seeing, then feel free to gouge them out. And it shows the irrationality of empiricism that it stands on unproven assumptions, since it requires all beliefs to be proven, it therefore fails its own test and demands its own rejection. Are arbitrary and contradictory beliefs allowed in your worldview? If so, why not believe any given insane thing? If not, then empiricism must be rejected. Nor is the torture of a child for sport “wrong” in any sense under this lie, since by your own confession there is no moral law or standard, only a habit which developed through the evolution of molecules into men. Therefore, it is not wrong to torture children, why would it be? If it is argued that to do so is destructive to the self and the human race, the question then is so what? Why is that wrong? So when the objective reality of morality is denied it is strictly impossible to posit any moral imperative.
>>18553631I'm not arguing against God. I am arguing you employ value to even do so, refuting yourself.
>/his/>doesnt know what axiology ischecks out
>>18552089>Value objectively existsall value is subjective you spectacular retard
>>18552089Franzese is a good example - likes the system as long as he benefits from it, when its time to pay he drops out.
>>18552325The color of your skin according to this board.
