Numbers are apart of reality.

is ought is the difference between the way the world is (positive or descriptive thought) and the way we want it to be (normative or preferential thought)

Numbers are just a way of qualifying reality.

We can do it differently, but there are simples in the universe.

Well @Hector All that I am doing is stating that which was preached by Jesus.

its pretty obvious that the brain is a product of evolution, as are our moral preferences

our moral preferences are just emergent

@Nerthulas the book I recommended you, did you open it yet?

I opened it and looked over it quickly, but I haven't gone into it in depth

does it contain a response to this?

It’s a book about how the mind evolved and difference between a ripple in moral preferences.

But I think morality is outside of people. Just wanted you to know I understand the whole evolution morality thing.

the thing is, the fact that the brain evolved a certain way actually implies nothing about what we ought to do, or the validity of human morality

its just a fact

it doesn't budge is/ought

something being explained is not the same as something being justified

Well, if you don’t believe in moral realism, that would be the case.

Like I understand what you’re saying. I even recommended you a book on it. I disagree though.

well independently of what your position on moral realism vs non realism is, an explanation is not the same thing as a justification - that I can find an evolutionary basis for a behavior does not imply that that behavior is metaphysically good or whatever

there is no room for disagreement

lol

So you don’t think I can justify my position?

absolutely not 😂

frankly I like christians who claim revelation more than christians who engage in apologetics

I don’t know if this convo can move forward.

🤷🏻

Throw holy water on him

He will burn

anything you could do would be purely linguistic

a trick with definitions

@Nerthulas Is correct, Pathos exist, and Christianity already knew that.

@iippo I’m not Catholic....

@Nerthulas errrr no?

ok, give it to me then...

I'll show you where the difference in definitions causes the breakdown

Well, I think morality is based off group strategy.

We can measure roughly success and judge that as moral or not.

speculating about what moral systems are the most evolutionarily advantageous, or what the evolutionary basis of moral systems are, is not a solution to is/ought, it does not even engage with it

So you think something needs to be GROUNDED to be objective?

idk exactly what you mean by grounded, but unless you solve is/ought, your preference is an animal preference caused by the series of events which led to your life, and is a natural phenomenon, not a metaphysical one

So, grounded is something enforcing or justifying it.