The fact that it's true. I know that you abhor truth claims, but there you go there it is.
The fact that I can't prove it to you does not effect its truthfulness. That's the entire point about transcendence. You don't have to believe it or understand it for it to be true.
For someone who loves to wield the sword of skepticism towards other arguments, I find the bolded incredible.
You seem to be falling back to your same fallacious statement that the only truth worth trusting is the truth that can be empirically proven-- which is a truth claim that can never be empirically proven. So, you seem to want the right to claim un-empirical truth as truth, while telling me that I can't claim un-empirical truth as truth.
It is not a "truth". That is where your argument breaks down.
It is merely a value judgement from my subjective point of view. When claims are made, I value those which are empirically tested and not yet falsified over those which are not tested but falsifiable over those which are not testable or falsifiable.
I am saying that if you can not claim something to be objectively wrong, then you are not claiming it to be wrong. You are claiming that it is one opinion of all equally valid opinions, so it is not truly a moral structure. Morality seeks to define right and wrong. If everything is equally right or equally wrong, then you have not formed a moral code.
This whole thing is absurd. My admittance of my lack of objectiveness in no way invalids my own claim to myself of what is right or wrong. If something is wrong to me, then it is wrong to me. I could in the future or at some point in the past had/or will have a difference stance on a particular situation, but as it
is to me at any given moment, right or wrong.
I can only answer to my own thinking consciousness. My sense of right and wrong is as real to me as my left and right hand. It shapes how I act, how I live my life, what I say, etc. It is without a doubt a moral code. My moral code.
With that said, I cannot get outside of myself. I am confined to my body, my senses, my sensory input (experiences), and my mind. Thus, I can only answer for myself. That does not mean that I think all moral claims are equally valid from my own perspective. I think many moral claims are illogical and inconsistent. However, from a third party perspective (one that can observe but not judge) without their own opinions, such viewpoints would be equally valid. To get around this, you are anchoring your moral viewpoints in what you think, in your opinion, is the morality of a supernatural personal deity. You are not alone. Billions of people all over the world, through history, and of all religious faith have/do the same thing. Their moral claims and the interoperation of the moral claims of their deity are just as subjective as your claims or my claims unless they can transcend their own experiences, rational, and mind.
For that matter, you have told me that no one can have objective truth, so you can't claim any objective truth. I have no idea why you even bother with these discussions, and I am not surprised that we can agree on very little.
You are hampered by your own philosophy and are completely blind to it. If you can't access objective truth (as your philosophy demands that you can't), then there is no way of trusting anything you have typed, and you have just wasted everyone's time. If what you say is true, then it is proven false by its truth. If it is not true, then obviously it needs to be discarded.
You are welcome to your philosophy. I just don't know why, believing as you do, you would ever want to engage anyone in conversations trying to prove your worldview here, as you are so want to do. Are you seeking to convince me that you have learned the truth? If not, why the hell even bother?
You are mixing and matching what I have said out of context due to the fact that this is a forum which I don't feel like typing out a whole paragraph to clarify my semantics given its use in that particular situation.
Yes, I do not believe true absolute objectivity can ever be obtained by any biological being that cannot transcend their own experiences, senses, or mind. Thus, I do not believe that biological entities can ever have true knowledge of absolute truth (being the reality outside ourselves). We can only hope to limit our imperfect knowledge of it.
That does not mean that I view/value all information as subjective. I view it on a sliding scale from very subjective to very objective with "absolute objectivity" not on the scale. So, your favorite food might be on the very subjective side of the scale while scientific knowledge/experiment with very precise instruments/measuring equipment and detailed procedures which can be reproduced by anyone all over the world (and into posterity) would be on the very objective side of the scale. However, due to our own limitations of our minds, our tools, our faulty senses, paradigms, etc. we will never be able to truly have "absolute objectivity". Furthermore, for the same reasons, we never prove a theory to be true or "truth"; we only continually try to falsify and say theories to not proved false, yet.
