All of you evolutionists are stupid when it comes to logic.

[Seiya]

Think about it this way. You believe in a big bang, and you say that  no matter can come by supernatural forces. If you say that the big bang created everything, where did the big bang come from? If there's a big bang, there has to be something to go bang.

Secondly, millions of years is not possible. Salt grows in the oceans every day. If the earth really was millions of years, we could literally walk across the ocean.

And last, do you know how complex life is? Only 20 amino acids are used in life, and there are a lot of amino acids. Only the left-handed amino acids are used in life, none of the right-handed ones. There are left and right-handed amino acids. And another thing is that you have to have all of the amino acids in exact order.

Do you REALLY believe that our bodies could be made by chance?

The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Monotheistic religions do not contradict each other.  Try to remember that.

[LongDono]

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

and what is the truth then? how are we suppose to know the truth? What if my "truth" that I arrive at is different than your "truth"? whos truth is correct?

Something I seem to not have communicated properly. If both you and me started to work on a very complex math problem above our understanding we probably would get different answers and they probably would both be incorrect. My "truth" (aka my fallacious and incorrect opinion) does not have any effect on the correct answer (Which may be unknowable). How do we attempt to learn the unknowable? I don't know but I believe we have a duty to try (and most likely fail).

Math problems are just 1 example, how about right and wrong? Hard to define sometimes right? That is because we seem to think right and wrong are opinions and yet we teach people not to do wrong. That brings me to truth!
Truth is man made just like right and wrong so that means there is no "truth" but only what seems real to each person on an indvidual level. If it is unknown to man it can not be the truth until man learns of it. God is truth to some, while not truth to others, yet no one can prove god but also some know of him/her/it and to them it is truth and proof enough.
What some call luck some call an act of god, but neither can be proven no matter how hard we try so is it possible to say what the truth is?
( remember I am just playing devils advocate here. )

Is your claim that reality is created by opinion? Ie if we all were of the opinion that we could fly then gravity would not affect us?

I believe that there exist facts about reality. I believe people have opinions about reality. I believe that when these correlate many would call that knowledge. When I refer to truth I am referring to the facts not the opinions or the knowledge. Math (IMO) was true before it was derived.

We often act upon our opinions of right and wrong because they dictate how we ought to act. The wise note that our opinions about facts are not correct unless they correlate with those facts.

Yes and no. Truth if it remains unknown to man is up to opinion, like god. Some believe in god so much they go to insane lengths to worship god. To them god is truth, and luck is gods will. To others god can not be proven and thus is not real. Acts of god are called luck in this case.
In any event it is hard to play devils advocate when you don't believe in what you talk about. Maybe if I sound more like glenn beck and iggnore the other sides talking points people will believe me? ( sorry  but I don't like the guy lol )
The line of thinking I am trying to debate here I have only heard about so I am sorry if I don't debate it well.
If truth is a man made thing like right and wrong then like right and wrong it is up to the person to decide. This only works if both sides of the debate can agree on if truth is a man made thing or not. Because truth is "what is" then that means you can make the debate that truth is around before people just never expressed. Also right and wrong can have something very much the same said about it though that would be more along the lines of "man created right and wrong or god did atleast"
Anyways I don't think I can play devils advocate well this time I am sorry.
Also if you watch anime at all watch Tngn toppa gurren lagann and you will know why I laughed when you said this. "reality is created by opinion? Ie if we all were of the opinion that we could fly then gravity would not affect us?"
Also flying dose not iggnore gravity. ( sorry a little nitpick )

[LongDono]

Think about it this way. You believe in a big bang, and you say that  no matter can come by supernatural forces. If you say that the big bang created everything, where did the big bang come from? If there's a big bang, there has to be something to go bang.

Secondly, millions of years is not possible. Salt grows in the oceans every day. If the earth really was millions of years, we could literally walk across the ocean.

And last, do you know how complex life is? Only 20 amino acids are used in life, and there are a lot of amino acids. Only the left-handed amino acids are used in life, none of the right-handed ones. There are left and right-handed amino acids. And another thing is that you have to have all of the amino acids in exact order.

Do you REALLY believe that our bodies could be made by chance?

The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Monotheistic religions do not contradict each other.  Try to remember that.

This so much.
( well sometimes they do cross eachother a little.  )

[QuantumT]

The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Monotheistic religions do not contradict each other.  Try to remember that.

For somebody who is trying to use a literal interpretation of the bible (like the OP is), the ideas are mutually exclusive. Both evolution and the big bang require more than the 6000 or so years the bible say the universe has existed for. If you take the bible to be metaphorical, then it mostly works out alright.

As for the debate on moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, I'm in the relativism camp.

As far as I can tell, there only really seem to be 3 options.

1) There is no absolute morality, and therefore relativism is all we have.

2) There is an absolute morality, but it is unknowable, and therefore we're forced back to relativism.

3) There is an absolute morality and it is knowable. I don't really buy into this option because I don't think there's any way to "prove" right and wrong.

So as far as I can tell, we're forced into moral relativism regardless.

[Daxx]

The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Monotheistic religions do not contradict each other.  Try to remember that.

So what happens when said religions make claims about the age of the Earth? Isn't there conflict there?

Though I suspect not taking the holy texts of those religions literally was implicit in your statement.

[OldTrees]

Yes and no. Truth if it remains unknown to man is up to opinion, like god. Some believe in god so much they go to insane lengths to worship god. To them god is truth, and luck is gods will. To others god can not be proven and thus is not real. Acts of god are called luck in this case.
In any event it is hard to play devils advocate when you don't believe in what you talk about. Maybe if I sound more like glenn beck and iggnore the other sides talking points people will believe me? ( sorry  but I don't like the guy lol )
The line of thinking I am trying to debate here I have only heard about so I am sorry if I don't debate it well.
If truth is a man made thing like right and wrong then like right and wrong it is up to the person to decide. This only works if both sides of the debate can agree on if truth is a man made thing or not. Because truth is "what is" then that means you can make the debate that truth is around before people just never expressed. Also right and wrong can have something very much the same said about it though that would be more along the lines of "man created right and wrong or god did atleast"
Anyways I don't think I can play devils advocate well this time I am sorry.
Also if you watch anime at all watch Tngn toppa gurren lagann and you will know why I laughed when you said this. "reality is created by opinion? Ie if we all were of the opinion that we could fly then gravity would not affect us?"
Also flying dose not iggnore gravity. ( sorry a little nitpick )

The phrase "X is true to me" has (IMO) two valid meanings
1) I personally believe X to be true.
2) I personally believe X to be true and that belief causes X to be true.

Meaning 1 is not relevant to discussions about what is true.
Meaning 2 has the implication that reality is a social construct that only exists as it does because it is not believed to be otherwise. If (and while for it can cancel itself) meaning 2 is true then the nature of reality is fluid. This is a non-self-contradictory belief.

You did a fine job of presenting the devil's advocate position.


@QuantumT
I see a few more possibilities

Moral Nature of morality
1) Absolute (Morality exists and is not shaped by opinion)
2) Relative (Morality exists as more than an opinion but shaped by opinion)
3) Amoral (Morality is just a man made opinion)

Epistemological Nature of morality
A) Knowable (The Moral Nature and its details, if any, are knowable)
B) Unknowable (The Moral Nature and its details, if any, are unknowable)

1A Knowable does not necessitate provable. In this case we would have a duty to pursue moral action.
1B Unknowable does not necessitate giving up. You can do something without knowing you are. Again in this case we would have a duty to purse moral action. (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)
2A [I do not sufficiently understand this view as I defined it]
2B [I do not sufficiently understand this view as I defined it] (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)
3A Knowable does not necessitate provable. In this case we would need to replace the fiction of morality with something else.
3B In this case we would need to replace the fiction of morality with something else. (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)

[QuantumT]

Moral Nature of morality
1) Absolute (Morality exists and is not shaped by opinion)
2) Relative (Morality exists as more than an opinion but shaped by opinion)
3) Amoral (Morality is just a man made opinion)

Epistemological Nature of morality
A) Knowable (The Moral Nature and its details, if any, are knowable)
B) Unknowable (The Moral Nature and its details, if any, are unknowable)

1A Knowable does not necessitate provable. In this case we would have a duty to pursue moral action.
1B Unknowable does not necessitate giving up. You can do something without knowing you are. Again in this case we would have a duty to purse moral action. (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)
2A [I do not sufficiently understand this view as I defined it]
2B [I do not sufficiently understand this view as I defined it] (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)
3A Knowable does not necessitate provable. In this case we would need to replace the fiction of morality with something else.
3B In this case we would need to replace the fiction of morality with something else. (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)

1A- It seems that you being able to prove it is key. Otherwise, how can you claim that my view is flawed if it's different from yours? If you can't claim that mine is flawed, then how can you claim that yours is absolute?
1B- Since it is not knowable, moral relativism is the best we can do.
2A&2B- Just subsets of 1B as far as I can tell.
3A&3B- These just lead to moral relativism, as there's nothing else.

So the way I defined my 3 choices before:

My 3-->your 1A
My 2-->your 1B,2A,2B
My 1-->your 3A,3B

[OldTrees]

Moral Nature of morality
1) Absolute (Morality exists and is not shaped by opinion)
2) Relative (Morality exists as more than an opinion but shaped by opinion)
3) Amoral (Morality is just a man made opinion)

Epistemological Nature of morality
A) Knowable (The Moral Nature and its details, if any, are knowable)
B) Unknowable (The Moral Nature and its details, if any, are unknowable)

1A Knowable does not necessitate provable. In this case we would have a duty to pursue moral action.
1B Unknowable does not necessitate giving up. You can do something without knowing you are. Again in this case we would have a duty to purse moral action. (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)
2A [I do not sufficiently understand this view as I defined it]
2B [I do not sufficiently understand this view as I defined it] (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)
3A Knowable does not necessitate provable. In this case we would need to replace the fiction of morality with something else.
3B In this case we would need to replace the fiction of morality with something else. (However this case requires higher levels of humble doubt)

1A- It seems that you being able to prove it is key. Otherwise, how can you claim that my view is flawed if it's different from yours? If you can't claim that mine is flawed, then how can you claim that yours is absolute?
1B- Since it is not knowable, moral relativism is the best we can do.
2A&2B- Just subsets of 1B as far as I can tell.
3A&3B- These just lead to moral relativism, as there's nothing else.

So the way I defined my 3 choices before:

My 3-->your 1A
My 2-->your 1B,2A,2B
My 1-->your 3A,3B

1A- Being unable to proof that there is an ought is no excuse not to obey the ought. (The belief in enforcing the ought on others is another thing entirely that is not inherent in this belief)
1B- Being unable to know what the ought is no excuse to ignore its imperative. (However it is a great reason not to enforce my fallacious incorrect guess on others)
1 and 2 have an important difference. In 2 your opinions are right. In 1 your opinion are likely to be at least partially incorrect.
2 and 3 have an important difference. In 2 morality is as significant and real as in 1. The only difference is that your opinions help shape what the impermissible/permissible/both/neither actions are. In 3 "I think murder is wrong" has no more reality than "I think pasta tastes good". This is an important difference. This difference leads to a substitute for morality being needed in case 3 (to direct action) but not needed in case 2.

So
1- Seek to obey the absolute moral code.
2- Follow the moral code dictated by your opinions.
3- Find and follow a substitute motive (happiness, survival, knowledge, ...).
A- If you know then humble doubt is no longer needed.
B- Humble doubt is always needed.

Only in a subset of 1A would it be recommended to enforce morality upon others. I am a believer in 1B.

[Daxx]

So how can we tell the difference between 1, 2, and 3?

[Vindo]

Considering vindos reply is filled with just as many misunderstandings and fail arguments as the TC, I think Ill just continue my discussion.

If you would like to point out any of these fail arguments I'd be happy to explain myself.

[Seiya]

The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Monotheistic religions do not contradict each other.  Try to remember that.

So what happens when said religions make claims about the age of the Earth? Isn't there conflict there?

Though I suspect not taking the holy texts of those religions literally was implicit in your statement.

Yes.  This was my intent.  My interpretation of the holy texts are that they convey moral truths, not scientific accuracy.  The Creator or Whomever or Whatever the OP believes in gave us the ability to reason.  We are within our rights to use it.

[TimerClock14]

Okay this has gone far enough, allow me to explain all your problems. But first, a quick question:
Do you know This lady?

if yes, then I suggest you stop listening to her.
if no, then i can't help you. >_<