[PDerna]

So you say that a moral “truth” that applies to humanity “just is?” That doesn’t seem to be a consistent fit whatsoever with the standards of your previous posts. Where do you show the work in that? Was truth a result of the Big Bang? What exactly is this truth, anyway?

Look….I am not moving the goalposts. I am attempting to get at a presuppositional error, but it is the error which is preventing you from seeing it. By “you” I don’t necessarily mean you personally – I don’t know what you or any of you believe, exactly. I am referring to the general approach of my main critics here. But it is a typical trait of the “scientific” mind that what you reject, you seem to reject on scientific grounds, and what you accept, you seem to accept on philosophical grounds. Science is merely a convenient wall to hide behind. It is true of the authors I wrote about, and it seems to be true of some here.

[balrog666]

So you say that a moral “truth” that applies to humanity “just is?”

Gee, I must have missed something, what "moral truths" have ever been established at all?

[jennyp]

Look….I am not moving the goalposts. I am attempting to get at a presuppositional error, but it is the error which is preventing you from seeing it.

OK, I take back my suspicions about goalpost-shifting. I reread your article & your, my, Vade's, & PH's discussion on this thread. Let me see if I have your argument in a nutshell:

You say that science depends on some unproveable, unmeasurable assumptions. We all agree that these are necessary axioms.

You then ask, why can't we accept another unproveable, unmeasurable assumption - that consciousness requires God? Isn't this a double standard?

We say there's no reason to - just because a statement is unproveable & its claims are unverifiable doesn't mean it's an axiom. You say it is axiomatic, because unconscious atoms cannot combine to create a conscious person, because Descartes once said that an effect cannot be "greater" in some undefined sense than its cause. (Which I assume is equivalent to saying "The amount of some quality of the whole cannot be greater than that of the sum of its parts.")

This is where I accused you of committing the fallacy of composition. After rereading the thread, I'm certain that's your fundamental error in thinking here.

So I must ask you again: From what or whom did water get its fire-suppressionness? Why is the amount of fire-suppressionness contained in a mole of water a high value, when 2 moles of hydrogen & a mole of oxygen both possess large negative amounts of fire-suppressionness? The whole is not equal to the sum of the parts here. How can that be?